here I am. No, I'm right here. I hope you all can hear me. Great. All right. We're going to present this concept clearance for the whole chip toward more comprehensive analysis of genome-wide association data. And many thanks to my colleague Anastasia Weiss, who's only been with us for about six months, but has really dived into this effort with us. So that's great. We've gotten a little ribbing about the name of this. It might remind you of Dorito or something like that. You might be aware that Doritos have lots and lots of components in them. And if you leave out even a couple of them, you just don't get the whole bang for your buck. So similarly, like genome-wide arrays, what we'd like to do is support broader utilization of the data that have already been generated in genome-wide studies of human disease. The goals then would be for underutilized information, and we'll show you some data on how underutilized those may be. Primarily the X that is, but also the Y, mitochondrial, and CNV data. We'd like to facilitate more comprehensive analysis of existing data where necessary, stimulate development and validation of new quality control and genotype calling procedures. And also, where necessary, develop and validate new statistical methods, analytic strategies, and study designs. Some of you may be familiar with this diagram. I understand there was a drinking game at the latest ASHG, where every time you saw this diagram shown, people took a drink. But at any rate, you notice that it's very heavily populated everywhere except in the poor X chromosome. Well, actually, there's also this little guy that doesn't get any at all. But quite a difference when one compares the sex chromosomes to the autosomes. And Anastasia with Lynn G, who's busily taking notes for counsel over there, reviewed actually nearly 400 of the most recent genome-wide association papers in the GWA catalog from January of 2010 to March of 2011. And what you can see here is the proportion of papers. This is the number of papers per month. And then the proportion of them that even analyzed the X chromosome, whether or not they found anything, whether they reported analyzing it. And overall, it's only about 32% of the papers, about third. And that did not change really over time. So it didn't increase or decrease with time. We're not quite sure what happened in February of 2010. It just seemed to be a bit of an outlier. And if one looks at the number of hits that has been found at the 5 times 10 to the minus eighth level in the catalog, for chromosomes of similar size, there are about 50 hits. Chromosomes, even the little teeny tiny ones, have maybe a quarter to half that many. And the X chromosome has only seven of 1200 and 12 total associations at this level. So quite a difference there. This is kind of an interesting thing to look at. Anastasia pulled out a nice example of data on DbGaP. You may be aware that the DbGaP staff do generate what are called precomputes, where they basically take all of the genotype data and relate it to the phenotype. The phenotype in this case was diabetic nephropathy. And they found an association on the X chromosome, the strongest association in the data set at 5 times 10 to the minus 11th. When the paper was published, however, that the X chromosome was not analyzed at all, and that hit went away, they basically removed the X chromosome as the first step of QC, without giving any reasons as to why they did that. This is kind of an interesting region. The SNP that's involved, RS798159, is very near. An ENCODE-defined region of promoter-associated histone mark. So many thanks to our ENCODE colleagues for generating these data. And as you can see here, just kind of spreading this out a little bit, it really is kind of right on the edge of the beginning of this promoter-associated region. There's also what might be a little bit of DNA's hypersensitivity activity there as well. So it's sort of an interesting SNP to look at, and one that might have been worth looking at in this analysis. You'll notice that there are lots and lots of genes in this area, but sort of upstream here, there's one that's a particularly attractive biologic candidate, the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 gene, which is known to be associated with a whole variety of nephropathy-related traits, including estimated gluminal filtration rate, which is the definition of nephropathy. So that's not saying that this is necessarily a causal association that could have been picked up with this particular analysis, but it does kind of raise some questions as to why exclude the X outright. There may be some interesting stuff there. So there are reasons that the X chromosome is a little more difficult to analyze. There is somewhat lower genotyping accuracy due to difficulties with clustering algorithms that have to deal with the poor hemizygous genomically efficient among us, as well as the pseudosomal region shared with the Y chromosome that can be difficult to genotype. There's also more missing data. 13 or 14 Geneva studies showed more individuals with a greater than 5% missing call rate. Geneva, of course, is our large-scale consortium of genome-wide studies and a whole variety of different traits, but all analyzed out of the, or at least the data are cleaned in the same coordinating center. And higher levels of chromosome-1 anomalies as shown here. Missing call rates for the autosomes were about 0.08% or so. For the X chromosome, there are about seven times more than that for the Y chromosome, about 20 times more than that. So really quite a difference, but this is the one that we're focusing on. Metacondrial also quite a bit more. In the autosomes, about 0.015% noted anomalies. The X chromosome has about 10 times that, and the Y chromosome a little bit less. So there are more challenges there. Still, we're talking about very low numbers of SNP calls lost in percentages. Other reasons are that this is a little bit challenging to interpret. One does have to consider X in activation. And if you have a SNP that you've picked up, is it on the active chromosome or isn't it? Plus, about 15% of all X chromosome genes escape in activation, and that's not random. Obviously, there are reasons for that happening. Analytically, this is a challenge. There was a lack of implementation software until relatively recently. There's some difficulty in assigning haplotypes, and there's a need to accommodate different expectations for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and minor allele frequency estimation. This is not hard. It just has to be done a little bit differently from the autosomes. We had just sort of an informal poll asking folks that we knew that had collaborated with us on a variety of programs, why they thought this might be, and whether it would be worth stimulating. There were some who felt that we really didn't need to stimulate that will happen naturally now that imputation programs regularly include the X chromosome. There were others that felt that we were really too early in trying to do this, that the X chromosome was so difficult to genotype that really we had to wait until sequencing was better able to approach those. Or maybe this is the right time. It's clear that the first genome-wide association paper has really kind of set a precedent of excluding the X, and that hasn't seemed to be questioned to a great deal beyond that. The autosomes provide so much data. Perhaps you don't need to bother with the X, and you get around to it when you have time and you never have time. Clustering algorithms, as I mentioned, are more complex, and there's a little more effort required to analyze them. There's also somewhat lower power with 3N versus 4N genotypes in these. Nails and females combine. We're proposing that we try to stimulate this area somewhat by asking investigators to obtain and analyze existing genome-wide association data, it could be their own, or data from DDGAP, or other similar data sets. For phenotype associations with X chromosome variants primarily, we also would like to see how folks might deal with Y chromosome mitochondrial variants and possibly structural variants as well. Focus on data sets where these data have not really been analyzed, although one might allow them to do some replications using different methods, and develop and validate and disseminate possibly new user-friendly quality control and analytic methods, again, with an open access model. And we would, as is always our mandate in population genomics, try to be sure that they include diverse populations since those would be an issue as well. We would propose that investigators need initially to share proposed methods, identify common analyses to be undertaken, and then meet again halfway through to sort of assess progress and how things are going. And then at the end, have a workshop that would be open to folks outside of the investigator group to report on experiences and explore and disseminate lessons learned. Again, we would ask for a plan to analyze, under-utilize genome-wide data within this two-year timeframe, asking them to focus on the X chromosome, they would have to have access to existing data. We would propose that perhaps about 10% of the budget be set aside if needed for genotyping and or sequencing of DNA in possibly a limited, high-priority subset of subjects. That's something that we could use your advice on. It might be worthwhile, but it would be something that we would hold in and sort of reserve until we saw what kinds of applications we had to come in. We would require a deposition of individual-level data and DV gap if they were not already deposited. We would propose that simulation studies be allowed as part of methods development, but that an application not be limited to simulation studies. There would need to be analysis of existing data. Suggested criteria for selection would include a broad range of diseases and traits, as always in population genomics, high public health significance and ethnic diversity of the population's development dissemination of new methods. And as a sort of a guideline, at least 2,000 participants with existing high-quality genome-wide chip data greater than 550,000 variants and the more data that can be provided. We would anticipate funding this at a relatively modest level, $2 to $3 million total over a two-year period, so about 1.2 to 1.5 per year for four to eight awards. We would propose the research project grant mechanism. We don't see that there is a need for cooperative agreement approach, though we would look for your advice on that. And we would encourage participation of other institutes and centers to fund more applications with a wider range of phenotypes that might be relevant. So we see this as an opportunity for maximizing the knowledge to be gained from existing genome-wide data, for which the research community has paid dearly, to avoid missing important associations with human disease and to leverage available data with a modest additional cost. So I think with that, I'll stop and ask for any comments. Thanks, Terry. I'll focus my comments on the X-Gromosome because that was the primary focus of the concept clearance. I totally agree that ignoring the X-Gromosome has really been an issue over the last four or five years of GWAS. And I agree with Terry that basically the first few studies sort of set a precedent and guilty, since mine was one of them for Type II diabetes in 2007. Now, the reason that we were guilty is that it was actually three studies that were working together very closely. In fact, we ended up publishing papers back to back to back in science. Two of the groups had done the AFI 500 K-Hif. We'd done the Illumina 317K. And basically, we were in the early days of doing this, trying to decide how could we combine our data, because despite the large numbers of SNPs, there's only about 40,000 of them in common. And a happy fact is, at that same time, Gonzalo Macassus at our place and Jonathan Marchini in the UK were developing methods of genotype imputation. And so those methods were developed just in time that we could in fact impute genotypes across our platforms in those early publications. They did, however, at that time only do it for the autosomes. It was only a couple of years later that that became available for the X, which is at one level a little bit silly because the X is actually easier than the autosomes. And the notion that haplotyping is harder for X chromosome than autosomes, well, we can't really credit that because a lot of the work is already done in the context of at least half the people. But I think those early studies did set a precedent. And I think people have sort of been comfortable not dealing with the X chromosome, partly because of issues of how do you count? Do you count females as having two and males as one or with X in activation? Do you count one each or how do you do that? There were early on issues of availability of methods for testing, methods really, but software. But those issues have really gone away. And I think over the last couple of years, last year and a half really, imputation and analysis methods have now become available. A lot of the work in GWAS, though at this stage, is focused on large scale consortia, meta analysis consortia.  And so in the stuff that's been published in the last year and a half, the analysis I think is totally right. There's still this autosome bias. But if we look at what's going on right now, and I have to confess I'm not able to look at everything that's going on right now. But if I look at type two diabetes and type one diabetes, other autoimmune diseases, lipids, blood pressure, glucose, anthropometrics, all of the sort of GWAS meta analysis consortia that I'm involved in or have close contact with, all of those are now doing the X chromosome as part of the sort of current stage of analysis. Now, that's not saying that that's true for cancer or mental health. I'm not in touch with those communities. I actually sent out some emails last night to see if I could get some input. And I suspect I have some input, but I can't get out the internet. So I can't go beyond the earliest returns I got, which were actually reasonably positive to like the idea of this sort of idea of encouraging the X to say, yeah, it's really not necessary. So I see no harm in this. But I'm not sure all of this isn't going to happen just sort of naturally. If we were in a climate of lots of funding, I'd say by all means, let's go ahead and do this. Given that we're not, I've sort of mixed emotions about going forward with something like this. I would say in its defense, it is very little money. And so, you know, one could, I'll turn it approach, I guess, would be to write sort of a brief position paper, see if we can get in a good journal and say, you know, this is something people really ought to be doing because now it's possible. Could you maybe talk about how applicable because you talked about the X, but you also talked about CNVs and some of the other ways of doing analysis that have also been underrepresented. Maybe given some of this, if the focus, if X is being taken care of, you can still move ahead with this, but refocus on some of these other types of analysis. I think that's a good point. I think we do need to look carefully at whether X is being taken care of. And I think that, you know, the data that we have today don't look all that great. I mean, things really haven't changed much at least to March of 2011.  So one thing that we could conceivably do is basically develop a funding opportunity, stimulate people. We might not even have to put any money into it. We might just stimulate them by having them write an application, which is kind of neat. And then see at the time that they come in, and after they're reviewed, to see if things really have moved forward, then probably this is a solved problem, which would be great. In terms of the Y in mitochondrial, and I would ask David and others who do this kind of genotyping to comment, my understanding is that they are still very problematic in terms of genotyping accuracy. And what we were looking for was a small amount of money to stimulate analysis of existing data sets. And I think the existing data sets probably aren't there yet. David, do you want to comment? I agree as far as the Y in the mitochondria. And I wasn't on the copy number variance. I wasn't sure if you meant copy number variance across the genome or just on the X. No, well, copy number variance across the genome. The concern that we'd have there is that that's a very sexy sort of thing right now and that that might swamp out analysis. Yeah, I totally agree. Plus, we've had some experience in the Geneva Consortium that's really pretty sobering in terms of duplicate concordance in these.  And when you look at mother-child transmission, only about a quarter to a third of them are transmitted where you would expect 50 percent or so. Right. So we're not convinced that the genotyping there is quite good enough yet to stimulate. Yeah, I agree with that as well. So I'd be, if you want to stimulate some attention to the X, I don't know if I'd have CNVs in that same. That's very helpful. Yeah, we really were on the fence on that. So that's very helpful to hear. Mike. One thing I was intending to look up, but didn't, was how many SNPs are there on the mitochondria, how many mitochondrial SNPs and Y chromosome SNPs are there on the standard products? I just, I have to confess, I don't know the answer to that. I think on why there's only like 28 or 30 or so, it's a very small number. On mitochondrial, it may be a couple hundred, but I honestly don't know. Yeah, before making a decision there, it'd be important to have some concept of, you know, how large that scope is. And I would totally agree on the CNV. I think that realistically, we've already spent a lot of effort on trying to identify and genotype CNVs in the context of GWAS data and, and putting a substantial more money into that. I'm not sure is the right thing to do. Matt, this is just, it's too little if you want to take on the CNVs. Right, yeah. And the, the additional problem with mitochondria, of course, is heteroplasmy. And then you see, you have to worry about, you know, where your sensitivity is and, and how heteroplasmy affects that. So I think that's a murky area right now. Would you recommend not including the mitochondrial in a, in a solicitation or including it, but looking at it very skeptically? I mean, allowing people to come in, maybe they have really great approaches for, for using it that we don't know about. Well, I guess I would say I, I wouldn't, I don't see a problem including it, but I just think the review of that has to be very, very informed to review. Great. And it wouldn't, and it wouldn't be the emphasis, the emphasis really on the X. Howard. Well, and I, I would, I completely agree with what's been said, except I would maybe emphasize it a little bit more, but review it very hard, because part of the reason why the reagents that we currently have available are not that great for, for, for why and for mitochondria is that there hasn't been any expectation around it. And so if there, if there is, there might be some informatics person who could turn their energy to it and figure it out, or some of the the companies may, may decide they better up their game.  Any other? I just make one more comment, and that is if, if one really is thinking of putting this out as a trial balloon with the intention that a year from now we may decide this isn't a problem, and therefore then not funding these grants that people would go to the trouble of putting in, I think that's a terrible choice. I, I think one needs to make the decision, is this something we think is important or not? If we're not sure, it'd be a better choice to put this off for a period of time than it would be to put up a trial balloon that I think will get a number of our colleagues pretty upset with us if it goes in that direction. Although the funding might be about the same as it is now. Fair enough. So I think we would propose given the data, you know, the best data that we have right now says that this is needed, and I think that's a, a fair thing to go forward with a solicitation. Things can always change. I do think though that the situation is a little different. Sometimes you need to stimulate methods when there aren't any methods, and here you already have methods being used in a third of existing studies. And that just strikes me as a different level of priority than a case where methods don't exist at all. So I would hope the incentive to find strong associations if they're there would itself be a reason that people would want to apply X chromosome methods to their existing data sets, particularly if they already exist and are working in other studies. So again, it's not a large amount of money, but the level of priority here to me seems less than those cases where methods don't yet exist or not being included in any studies for, for an important kind of analysis. Yeah, and the methods development was sort of a, you know, if needed, but, but I would agree with you that would be a low priority for, for this. It's really using the existing data. Sir? Actually, something like a, like the genome analysis workshop, one of those types of things focused on this may get as much out of, for nothing as, as putting out an RFA or a RPA. Because you're right. I mean, I think the problem is not X, because people will analyze that. Why? It sounds like it's not enough snips to worry about. My country, I don't know. It sounds like there could be some hope there. I would come back to something that Mike suggested, which is actually a publication. I mean, you've got these data together and I don't know where the, I haven't seen these, any kind of emphasis on these data and they're really astounding. Particularly if the data are just sitting there that people could do it now. Yeah. So, so that is definitely a plan of ours and Anastasia was busily working on slides for me. And then we'll, we'll take over right now. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, exactly. Great. Any additional comments? So what do we do about approving this as a concept? Do I hear a motion for one approval or disapproval? Well, I'd move disapproval. And is there a second? Second? Is there additional discussion? Do you feel that without this, you can stimulate this happen? Because it, I mean, David's point is true that this, this isn't job one, but there is some work. We, we are trying to stimulate it as best we can within our consortia. And, and there is resistant to it, even as that's happened. So getting people to do the imputation on the X chromosome and to, and to do the X chromosome analysis has been a challenge. And, you know, and we're paying them in, in other studies, I'm not sure that, you know, we have any, any cloud we would like to think that people would see this as a, as an opportunity and would go forward with it. It hasn't seemed to happen in the past couple of years. And so it seemed as though some stimulation would be appropriate. We can wait another year and see how it goes. Mike? Well, it is actively happening in type one diabetes. It's happening in type two diabetes. It's happening in glucose and insulin. It's happening in anthropometrics. It's happening in lipids. It's happening. You know, as I say, I don't know what's going on in some of the other areas, but in terms of immunogenetics and in terms of metabolic genetics, it is happening. Mike, is it just too soon and we're not seeing the publication? Correct. Okay. So these, that's not, they're not finding anything. No, the current round of meta analyses going on are a thousand genome space. So there's a whole new round of meta analyses going on for all of these different consortia I just named. They're doing, we're doing it again, because we've got a different set to impute against, we're impute against a much larger set of markers than we could and we're doing this based on Hamptman. So we will have publications coming out, I hope, from all of these different efforts. All of them are including DX. And I wasn't sure about that. So that's, that's a polling I actually, when I first saw the, the clearance to see that, or the proposed clearance to see what was going on. And in fact, I got emails back on Friday from each of those different groups I mentioned that, yes, we are actively doing that. I thought so, but I wasn't sure, but I did check. So, Mike, would you, would you have concerns about the phenotypes that really don't lend themselves to these large meta analyses? And you've, you've described traits that are, you know, have hundreds of thousands of people. And that's the place where I think there is an argument for doing this, but I think there's also an argument for, for writing the short position paper. And I think either approach is reasonable. I think either approach is reasonable. I've got to believe it's going to happen, but I could be wrong about that. There's a, I can speak a little bit for neuropsychiatric disease. There is a sort of a growing interest and realization that one needs to take into account sex differences in incidents and that we have not, that many papers pay almost no attention to that. And so I think you're going to see more interest in that and maybe that will stimulate people to look at the extent data. So, so can I ask a question before we go to, because obviously there's a motion on the floor in the negative direction. So, I don't know, before we vote on that, I guess what I want to hear from those who are moving not to move forward on this, what your proposal might be for sort of reassessing. I mean, there's obviously all of us right or right or wrong, right? And so either this is going to have an uptick or it's not. Are you, in saying don't go forward with this consequence at this time, are you saying come back in four months, eight months, 12 months, that's sort of the windows that we operate in. I think four months is probably too soon because these papers are just getting started. I think eight months would be quite reasonable. Or as I said, you know, this is not a lot of money. One could just say, you know, this is important enough to us that we think we ought to commit the funding to it. But, but, but that would be the time range I would be thinking. I think four months would be too soon to now. I think eight months we'd have a good idea. Isn't this a question not so much of is it going to happen or is it not going to happen without this funding, but rather more a question of can it be significantly accelerated and just what the benefit of that is relative to the amount of money that's being spent? I just asked Terry the question whether this is something that could be addressed by issuing a program announcement, which is essentially a statement of institute's interest. It doesn't carry any commitment to funds with it, but if you get good applications, you can fund them. They're essentially equivalent to investigate or initiate that are ones. I think that'd be totally sensible. Okay, any other discussion? So with that discussion we have a motion on the floor in a second. All in favor of the motion not to approve this as a concept for an RFA. Please indicate opposed. Okay. Thank you. So we will go ahead and look at these other. So we'll go ahead and look at these other approaches to trying to achieve this goal.


I think I'm going to do a bit more questions, so I'll go to my presentation, I'll end the questions. Thank you so much for coming. I'm very glad to see so many faces, familiar faces, and new faces. Thanks for coming on a Tuesday night. We're very excited to have this meeting here in San Francisco about gift lab. I'll be talking for about 20 minutes about the growth of our team, our mission and product, our adoption so far, our milestones that we achieve. I'm going to present some cloud-native slideware. I'm going to talk about the SIT shuffle, and we're going to have a Q&A session at the end. So gift lab is an open source project started in 2011, but the first time that we physically came together as a company was in 2014, and as you can see it was quite exclusive. The second time was during a recombinator in Mountain Cube, and nine months later we brought the whole company together in a canal house in Amsterdam, and it was quite cramped to fit everyone in. Our fourth site was in Austin in May of 2016, so that was half a year ago, and since then, since half a year ago, we doubled the size of our team. We now have 160 team members, and we just had our fifth summit in Cancun, Mexico. So that's not gift lab because gift lab is way bigger than the team I just showed. More than 1,500 people contributed to the core of the piece, and many more have helped by spreading the word about gift lab and helping people with questions. Over 100,000 organizations are using gift lab currently. So they are all helping with our mission, and our mission is to change all creative work from read-write, from read-only to read-write so that everyone can contribute. Gifts change software by making contributing something that you did have to be invited for, but something you could do as soon as you have completed. And we want to make it easier to collaborate on software and will not stop there. Now many parts of our culture are not open to suggestions. So we strive to make every book, every movie something that's open to collaboration because culture evolves much rapidly when you can stand on the shoulders of other people. So to realize our mission, we're taking it step by step. And the first step we already took, we already became the most popular self-hosted gift solution. Now the second step is to become the gift solution that generates the most revenue. So that's what we are currently working at. And that will allow us to finance the rest of the journey. The next step would be to convince people to host their private projects on GitLab.com. And in the end, we wanted people to use GitLab to host their public projects, but there's a strong network effect there, so it's going to take a lot of time to get there. And our big, hairy, audacious goal is to make sure all creative work is made with GitLab. Right now we focus on step two, but because GitLab is open source, companies like Handflip and O'Reilly are already using GitLab to make collaboration looks easier. And we look forward to people using leveraging GitLab to work on other media formats. So we think GitLab is a better experience for making applications because it's an integrated set of tools. With GitLab, you get one package which makes it easier to install. It's one configuration, it's one convention, one interface, one license, one data store. So one data store means we can show complete analytics to you. And we use the same code base for a .com product and a product you download. So although it's integrated, we want to convince people to use GitLab for all things, not force them. So we'll always have great integrations with tools such as Jenkins and Jira and Slack. But we think an integrated set of tools allows you to perform the complete product lifecycle in GitLab and we think that's a better experience. So if you download GitLab, you get MetaMOS to chat. From chat, you can create an issue. That issue, you can plan with an issue board and like travel. You can code from GitLab. You can start a web terminal. You can commit that code in a repository. It will run CI for you. It will run a container registry where you can commit your container. Then it allows you to review your code. It has merge requests and it has something called review apps. So review apps are your apps spun up at the state of the merge request you're sending. So you're proposing a code change and straight away you can see how that code change influences the application because you've got a copy of the application spun up in that state. Then we want you to go further, deploy to GitLab and we recently launched something called AutoDeploy. AutoDeploy allows GitLab to figure out what kind of application you're pushing and deploying in. So it's kind of like a Roku except that it's completely open source. So you can run it yourself. You can run it on a container scheduler and there's an upgrade path. If you're no longer happy with the default AutoDeploy, you can modify it to add all the other functionality because it's open source and you can contribute to it. Then you want to deploy to production. You have complete chat upstairs, GitLab. Then the last and one of the most important steps is getting your feedback. So GitLab ships with something called Cycle Analytics. Cycle Analytics allows you to see from when I had an idea to when I deployed it, how long did that take because we think that's the most important thing to improve in a company. And reducing the time from idea to production. And GitLab can give you feedback about that. And then the most recent thing we ship is Prometheus. It's a monitoring technology. And with that we can see where are the applications we deploy, how they are acting and whether it was an improvement.  And we can only do that if we have monitoring in GitLab. So that's why we're now shipping with monitoring technology. So this is the vision we presented this summer in June when we were fundraising. And at least three investors said we couldn't ship the complete idea to produce some lifecycle this year, last year, 2016. So we're very glad that we did manage to ship it. December 22nd, all these parts ship. And I think looking back in 10 years, people will think it's strange that this lifecycle used to require many different tools before we integrated them. So we're very thankful for all the customers that believe in us. Here's a selection of the 400 customers we've added in the last quarter. But even more important are that our existing customers are happy with GitLab. So at GitLab right now we've retained 98% of our customers. And after a year they spend 75% more money with us. And that's important to us because it shows that GitLab can help them get from idea to production costs. It wasn't one of our goals, but I'm also proud that we're the largest remote-only organization. So everyone works from the location they prefer. That allows us to focus on results, be disciplined in how we communicate. And it also allows us to hire the best people no matter where they're from. We now have people from over 33 countries. We try to practice our 10 values. Results, transparency, efficiency, frugality, collaboration, directness, kindness, diversity. Boring solutions and quirkiness. And I think this year a good example was our blog post. How we knew it was time to leave the cloud. It was transparent. All of these conversations are internal. It was efficient. We got the opinions of hundreds of experts. It was frugal because it just cost me half a Saturday to write it. We collaborated with the people that responded. And there was some directness involved because we ended up changing our opinion. We're staying in the cloud. We were wrong. We were trying to leave the cloud for the wrong reasons. And changing our opinion, let's just stick with the boring solution. They're not trying to host our own hardware. So we're trying to, with everything we do, we're trying to be transparent. We're trying to listen and be upfront. There's a big change happening right now. And that is the shift to cloud native. So the previous generation was virtual machines. And virtual machines means VMware, AWS, Heroku, but also Chef and Public to configure stuff. And we think that's going away. We think that people are moving to container schedulers, and in particular Kubernetes. So Git for us, although we were late, was a kind of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enter the version control market. But now we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to revolutionize the development experience. Because it's very, very hard to deploy your application on a container scheduler today. And if we at GitLab can make that easier, we think we have to show that becoming the default application development tool for cloud native development. So that is what we want to become. And we want to make using container schedulers as easy as using Heroku. And in GitLab 8.14, we launched auto-scaling CI, shadows and review ads on top of container schedulers. In 8.15, we now allow you to auto-deploy any app, or recognize your app and deploy it accordingly. And January 22nd, this Sunday, we launched integrated monitoring. Prometheus is now part of the GitLab packages, and we'll extend that over time to improve things such as review boards and extensive monitoring. So to make it really concrete what we want to achieve in the first quarter of this year, I want to present some slightware. So this is an example of the flow we want to achieve. We want people to go to Google Cloud and create an account. Start a new Kubernetes cluster and install GitLab on it. Chat about a problem in metamos chat that gets installed with GitLab. From there, create a project, create an issue. And the issue you create should have the context of the chat you had before. Should include the last three messages. Should be able to plan the issue with our issue boards. Then, you open up an issue and you click create products. And it should create a repository. It should allow you to get an auto-deploy template and initialize the repository so you can start coding. And then you start a web terminal. It's running on a container. And you get access to whatever is there. You can go in there and do a Rails new. Create a new Rails app and push it to the repository. And from there, you create a merge request. You check out the review app. So as I mentioned earlier, that app is like a new state. You can check it before you merge anything into master. So you're no longer dependent on staging. Every branch, every proposal gets its own staging environment. And that's now possible because we're using container schedulers. You can use chat ops to deploy to production. So you can say deploy staging to production. And that will understand what it means. And it will be preconfigured out of the box. And then the monitoring. So you get feedback about what happened. Because right now, many people are deploying things but they don't see the effects of what they're deploying. And if you work at a large company, hopefully you've got really good monitoring for your core repo setup. But it took a lot of work to get there. I want to make sure that that monitoring is something you get in the first 10 minutes.  But also hopefully your business metrics. Like this revenue going up or down because of these things. And we can show those changes in the merge request. Right there where it mattered, where you took the action. We're going to give you feedback. And last but not least, disciple analytics. How long did it take me to get from having an idea to getting that out into production. And we believe that right now this is the metric that all large organizations should try to optimize. People say startups are fun to work for. They get results. They are efficient. And it's really hard to articulate why big organizations fall behind. And we think this is a great mention. You should not optimize for hours. You should not optimize for how many velocity points you got. You should not optimize for how many issues you solved. All those things are very easy to gain. This is really hard to gain. If you're able to get from having an idea to having it out in the field within a couple of days, you're going to be more effective. You're going to get better feedback from the field. You're going to have more motivated people. It's part of a larger team that we have. We call it conversational development. And if you Google that, you'll find conversationaldevelopment.com where we articulate more of this. But we think this reducing the cycle time is the essence. And because GitHub is an integrated solution, we're uniquely suited to give you feedback and allow you to see what's slowing you down and try to improve that. And we want to make our tooling so that we help you with that. So there's about 200,000 developers using container schedulers in production today. And to get this flow with other tools, it takes weeks of integration. And with GitHub, you should be able to do it within half an hour from starting a new container scheduler. So to kind of expedite shipping our cloud native vision, I posed a challenge to our team. During the Summit in Mexico in the beginning of this month, I said that if they are able to show that demo right there, I'd dance a sit shuffle from my Sitesport. Immediately, a chat group was formed and people got on it. And they didn't disappoint. Well before the Summit ended, they had a demo ready. So we're very, very proud that in this release, January 22nd, we shipped with Google Container Engine support and we shipped with Prometheus. So in the release blog post on GitHub 8.16, you can find the video of the demo and my dance. I'm too embarrassed to show it here. But I'm sure you all have mobile phones. So that was the presentation. I want to thank you for your attention. There are lots of questions. Congrats on your recent success. Just a quick question about scalability. You guys started real small and just kind of grew real fast. I'm always interested to know how how you handle the scaling of the team, the size, what did you leverage for that help and how did you know you wanted to be one of the biggest remote teams around? Yeah, thanks for the question. And to start with the last thing first, we never set out to be one of the biggest remote-only teams. One of our values is boring solutions and that means not dreaming up new management theories and stuff like that. So Dmitry was in Ukraine. I was in the Netherlands, so we weren't able to sit in the same office. And then in the Netherlands I had a desk and I hired someone and they'd come in for a few days and then after a while they'd feel comfortable working from home because everything was online by default anyway, like we're using GitHub issues, et cetera. So that worked for development. And when we, after my coordinator, I thought, okay, now we need a real sales team. We had great sales people that they worked from home but I thought, no, we need an office. We need to like high-five one another when we close the deal. And we got in place and it's now deserted. I'm there during the day. Our cat is there, my wife is there. Who doesn't work at GitHub? And tomorrow we're going to have a lunch there. But most of the time no one comes in. So people came in for a few days and then they stopped coming in. And I was like, okay, well, I should probably make them come in. And I was like, well, maybe not. Like, one of our values is results. So if they're doing well, if they're selling well, let's not make them come in. Let's say sell more instead of that. And that's what we did.  So here I think, where are you? Chad, you want to, I'm going to tell it for you. You came in, you're like, for most sales people, well, okay. But that's never going to work for an SDR team, right? These people just out of college. And I was like, Chad, it might work, but I'm fine with it. I don't want to be innovative here. So it's fine. We'll get the SDRs here. For sure their first week of home boarding was like that. And we ended up hiring people in Utah that had a family life. And we didn't make them come in. And we're trying to judge them by results. And so far we feel it's working out for us. Skating a company, it's hard. We have lots of lessons. So if you go to aboutgitlab.com slash handbook slash leadership, you'll find some of the things. There are a lot of brands of me about matrix organizations. But one of the things I said to this to someone, it's normally if you grow a company, the culture kind of dilutes because it's passed on from generation to generation of people that joined. And in GitLab, it kind of gets stronger because so much is written down about how we work, how we operate, what our values are. And we add to that the entire time. So if you go to aboutgitlab.com slash culture, you'll find at the bottom, you'll find the feedback that people have that you'll also find the link to our one-on-ones. I don't think it's linked from there yet. But when you come to GitLab, there's a session called GitLab One-on-One. It's an introduction class. It's an hour. I did it today. But every time people ask questions, we write them down and we put them on the page. So the people that joined later have more information than the people that joined sooner. So what we see is that it just keeps... There's more information. It's better written down. It's better described about the why and the how. So we feel it's getting stronger. And apart from that, obviously we have scaling issues and we need to hire a lot of people to look at our jobs page. We have some big vacancies there. Pressing in the back. Okay, so I went to your site and I noticed that you have a lot of information on there. Of course we all know it's a super competitive world we live in technology but you have a lot of information about the company strategy, the metrics, the goals and so forth. What led to you feeling comfortable about doing that? Do you think there's any risk as you guys grow and get more competitive pressure having all that information publicly out there? Yeah, great question. If you go to aboutgitlab.com slash strategy, you'll find a lot of things that are normally very close in secret. And I think it's starting with our roadmap. So if you go to aboutgitlab.com slash direction, you'll find a roadmap what we had planned for the coming months. When we published that, we were like hmm, our competition is going to see this. And we did. And one time, one of our largest competitors launched something a day ahead of what we were launching it. Because they could see what we planned to launch it. But that's really the only negative thing that was really positive is that we now have customers that say I like where you're going with this. So I like your product right now but I like even more Redstone, so that's a reason for me to switch. And we've got people that are really excited. We've got all our feature requests or people in feature proposals. It's open source and you can make it yourself if you want. Thousands of them. They're online and if our sales people find someone that has a request they'll put it on a public issue track. They will not name the account. They'll put in a sales force link that only we can see. But the request is there and the type of company. And we find that those customers tend to join us there and together we can flesh out the feature. So it's our engineers these people working at large enterprises really passionate individuals that are running GitLab just for themselves all collaborating on a feature. So that works so well that we thought let's push it a bit further. Let's push it a bit further. If you look at the bottom of the strategy page there's something that says why is this open or something like that. There's a quote from Peter Drucker and it says strategy is a commodity execution is an art. We're not this decision that I presented. Everyone wants to get there. Everyone wants faster from idea to production. The problem is actually executing on it. So we think that is where we should do better than the rest. We shift every single month we shift on the 22nd and every single month there's a huge amount of really solid features in there and that's what we have to keep doing and it doesn't matter if they know that we're doing it what matters is that we actually execute well. Thanks for the question. I use your products every day and some of the things you wish on it My question is a lot of the stuff that you talk about you can use for the servers that we currently have but what's your mobile strategy? In our shop we run Unity builds through GitLab and we have OSX servers running and we have a whole mixture of stuff. Is there ever going to be a container solution to build that kind of stuff? Thanks for using GitLab first of all. There's some articles, some web posts that we gave about how to do iOS development and Android development with the help of GitLab CI. One of the advantages is that GitLab Brunner is just a simple Go program so you can easily install it on an OSX machine and add that to your CI file which is distributed by the full. We're thinking of making this a better experience for people that do GitLab.com by offering build minutes there not only on Linux but also on Windows and OSX that's something that might even take until next year before we deploy that. If you're self-hosted you should be able to do it today. We're very interested in making the experience better. One company that's a huge inspiration is Bodybuild. I think right now they have absolutely insanely great workflow for mobile development. We're working together on better support for GitLab there. Sorry, I should certainly check them out but they're also an inspiration to us so many of the things that they do to make it easier we might have in the future in GitLab. Mentor Fastlane, I just did. Oh, just by repeating you, sorry.  Git Host is our service where we run your GitLab instance for you. It's used by a couple of hundred people and nothing is written in stone yet right now our thinking is that the only reason people use Git Host is because GitLab.com is not fast enough and doesn't offer held up support. So we're working really hard this quarter to make sure GitLab.com is fast enough if I now lead a team as an interim infrastructure director I'm leading a team four teams to make sure that we make progress on that every week because we think GitLab.com doesn't accept it this well and we kind of use it's grown so fast it makes use but no more excuses we'll get it fixed and then the other thing that we think we have to do is make sure that you can use LDAP effectively on SaaS so we're starting to investigate where we can offer that on GitLab.com after that we hope that people will be able to migrate to GitLab.com which is highly available by default etc. We're not going to duplicate GitHouse but no decision has been taken and feel free to be angry at me for deprecating GitHouse during drinks.  Actually just a quick question I'm pretty new to GitLab why did you hate the cloud at first or yeah why did you reject the cloud at first and then what made you change your mind? Great question so we were upset that GitLab.com was slow and we had some problems mostly Git is very IO intensive and we got troubled a lot and if you're in the cloud and you're a noisy neighbor you get shut down and it's not very transparent when that is happening and that both are production engineers in sync so we thought let's move to hardware by really fast hardware and solve it that way and then we did that well and everyone said that's not the right way forward you should just fix your application and we realized all of our customers are in the cloud too so if we fix it only for ourselves with hardware we're going to screw over all of our customers users so it's much better to fix it in the application so that's what we're doing we have a project now called to do GitHub I'm going to nerd out a bit get over RPC and get that IO load under control and we're very thankful for all the people that warned us like you can leave the cloud it's just going to create a lot more complexity for yourself and we still have a walk post to like all the lessons but it was so much that it's taking a bit longer than we wanted does that answer it? thanks for the question last question it's a sales person that didn't show up at the office the audience don't give up office it's him our first and one of the best sales people why did you take the mic man? everyone can contribute but I'm not sure team members should be used I've got three questions for the audience how many people in this rewrite code at the moment how many people use GitHub for some capacity for that code last question who knows what a continuous scheduler is? very proud of you so thanks so much for coming I hope you enjoyed please mingle there are there are beers here I think there are beer monks as well so be sure to get some and I hope you have a nice rest of the week thanks again


Good afternoon and Aloha back to Kondo Insider on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm your host Jane Sugimura and today we'll be discussing open board meetings. This is a very important topic and we've had several shows on this particular topic but we still get questions and concerns from Kondo owners. They keep coming in and so you know I think it's worth it to talk about it again and you know the first issue is why are board meetings and why are open board meetings important and I think the most common sense answer to that is because owners are allowed to attend and owners are allowed to participate and and sometimes this is their only connection with you know working with the board unless they see them in the building or down at the swimming pool or at the barbecue you know to talk about you know the building and so you know it's really important to include the owners in these discussions to allow them to participate and yeah they may disagree with you I mean because not everybody is you know is in agreement with the board and heck if you're gonna disagree you might as well disagree in public with you know everybody there to you know chime in and so that's why these open board meetings are really really important because it does allow the owners to participate and they should participate they are members of the association they pay maintenance fees so they're paying you know for the upkeep and maintenance and they're paying they're contributing to the salary of the employees on the on the premises and so yeah they should they're entitled to you know have their two cents and that's why these these board meetings you know you know should be open and the the statute 514 b chapter 514 b which is a statute that regulates condominiums the intent of the statute and the section particular section I'm talking about is 514 b 125 and that's the one about board meetings and and and the intent behind that statute is to allow is to make clear that owners are allowed to attend the board meetings and they're not supposed to just come and sit there and listen I mean that's not much fun and you know and if I was a owner I wouldn't I don't think I'd you know want to attend a board meet where I just sat there and listened and I wasn't allowed to make you know put in my two cents so anyway the statute is intended to allow owners to participate and uh and and and and that's what I want to make really really clear up until three years ago the statute had language in it that's said that the board could limit board participation I mean owner participation and what it and the words in it basically said that upon a vote of the board members they could vote to exclude owners from participating that language was removed from the statute over three years ago and so there are a lot of people who sit on boards old timers who don't know that the law has been changed and so they may you know they may think that it's in that it's the law but it's no longer the law used to be but not anymore okay as of three years ago a state of hawaii hooked that language out to make it clear that owners have a right to participate in in in in the words of the statute in the deliberations and the discussions of the board and that's not limited to the owner's forum because some people say oh yeah well we have an owner's form and yeah we let our owners speak during the owner's form no no no no the statute says that the owners can participate in the deliberations and discussions of the board that means that you have a board agenda and let's say you're talking about plumbing repairs okay and there's a and and while the board is discussing this you have an owner who raises her hand the chair should recognize that person and that person may have a comment or a question or an observation and you know these are all very important to the board in making its decision and it may not be what the board wants to hear but they are owners they live in the building and you know they may see things that you know the board members don't see or don't know about and so it's very important you to allow this the owners to participate even though the owners can participate that doesn't mean that they can take over the meeting you know hijack the meeting in other words you get let's say you get a bunch of people who are unhappy with the board and they decide they're going to take over the meeting and they're going to ask all kinds of questions and they're going to be you know being disrespectful and say oh the board president is doing this and that and he shouldn't be doing this and that no that kind of stuff is not going to be permitted because the statute also says that you know even though owners can participate in the deliberations and discussion on the board the the board can adopt reasonable rules of owner participation because the main thing about a board meeting is the board has got an agenda and those of you owners who have ever attended a board meeting know that the agenda is posted it's posted somewhere in your building that says that there's going to be a meeting on such and such a date at such and such a time and there's an agenda the main purpose of the meeting is to get through that agenda okay but the board can adopt rules reasonable rules is what the statute says and typical of the rules are uh owners who come and you know each one can speak for maybe there's a time limit one minute two minute three minute four minute five minutes or whatever time they decide on and if you've spoken once you don't speak a second time until everybody else who wants to speak on that subject has had an opportunity to speak and that's fair right you know and and so after everybody has spoken and if you want to come up and say something else then you can raise your hand but you know you got to understand that that there's a time the the board has got to get through their agenda so you don't want to be repeating stuff as somebody else has already said but if you have something new to contribute then of course you know if the if if the chair and usually it's the president uh wants to allow you to speak and it's and the chair is as as part of you know running the meeting decides whether or not you're going to speak a second time and and the the the reason why you may not be allowed to speak a second time is because the president's got to get through uh the agenda and and they can't let the uh owners participation and input take away from the fact that you got to finish the agenda okay and to the extent that you're allowed to participate it would be uh limited by these rules and uh the rules once they're adopted I mean they have to be adopted by the board they and and in my building they're going to be posted along with the notice of hearing of the meeting every time those rules change they got to be circulated to the owner so that the owners know what the rules are I mean that's fair right if you come to the meeting and you're allowed to participate you should know what the rules are oh and one of the one of the the standard provisions of these reasonable rules is that people got to be just people got to be respectful in other words this is not the time to be calling people names uh making allegations that somebody is a cheater somebody is a fraud those kinds of comments will not be tolerated and you can be censored in other words totally or you can be you know and you're told you can't participate you may even be asked to leave the room okay and that's fair too because you can't have you can't come in and disrupt the meeting the board has got important business to uh to do and so you know that's the primary purpose of the meeting and oh but as part of the meeting the owners are a very important part of the meeting their input is important and uh and that's why you know the the rule was changed three years ago to make sure to clarify that owners did have a right to participate in every part of the meeting okay and you know the the owner participation is important because it allows owners to ask questions to provide feedback because like I said before you I I I don't know how many members uh you have on your board but you know it's typically nine people or seven or five but those people you know maybe have jobs and they're not there you know 24 seven and so maybe they don't see everything and so that's why it's important if you're the owner and you're sitting in the audience that you're and and you come to these meetings that if you see something or you hear something then maybe it's not not not what you've seen or if you have a question you should raise your hand because it's going to it's going to affect how you know board members decide on whatever issue is on their agenda and the another reason for having open meetings is to allow free communication between owners and the board and I can't emphasize this enough. Sue Savio who runs insurance associates and her company you know insures a whole lot of condominiums she tells me that Hawaii's got more lawsuit and claims made against the board by their owner. This is because there seems to be some miscommunication between the owners and the board they can't seem to get along and the owners file claims which they're entitled to do and it could have been because of a miscommunication a misunderstanding because people don't talk that's what happens when people don't talk and anyway this is not good for the association because every time that happens then it affects your insurance officers and directors the association has an officers and directors policy and every time a claim is made guess what if your association has a whole bunch of claims the premium goes up and I don't know how many and even though it's not an expensive coverage because I think typically a couple of years ago before all these you know before it got really bad D&O officers and directors insurance coverage was about two or three thousand dollars a year and if anybody if any of you want to go and look at your finances you'll find that the D&O is probably up to five and six thousand dollars now mainly because of these claims and and my association we haven't had any claims but our premium goes up and you know to me I get really mad because why am I premiums going up that's because you have condos in the state we're in the same risk pool so if I'm in the same risk pool as a hundred other condominiums and 50 of them have owners and board members who are fighting with each other guess what my insurance premium goes up even though my my my building has no claims at all and so that's why you know I am I am asking and you know I sometimes you know get on my you know preaching bench and you know and tell people you got to get along because you know this if you don't get along I mean you think it's it's there are no consequences but it is your insurance premiums go up if you look at your finances and you look at your D&O and your umbrella coverage for the last five years it's been going up because there are claims and lawsuit and you know so and if there's a way that we can minimize these lawsuits and claims uh we should do so that's why the open board meeting is so important and yes you're going to have disagreements you can't live in a building with 300 other families and not have a disagreement on how the building is run but that's okay it's okay to disagree okay the the the point is that you got to talk and be transparent and so that you know where you know where there's a concern and you should address it a concern doesn't go away because you you don't address it or ignore it it festers it gets bigger and next thing you know there's a claim filed and your insurance is going to go up and that means that you know that means that for everybody in the building the insurance I mean because they pay maintenance fees and your maintenance your insurance is included in your common expenses so if the insurance goes up that means your maintenance fees go up okay so that's another reason why you know we we all gotta try to communicate and one of the reasons and one of the biggest opportunities is that a board meeting and so yes and and if you're going to be doing a project and maybe there's going to be a special assessment you want the owners to know you don't want them to find out by a rumor then then then they're going to be all mad and say well geez how come you didn't tell me and how come you guys didn't do something about it before making a special assessment because there's nothing that gets owners matter at their board and if you do a special assessment they're going to say how come you didn't plan how come you didn't do this how come you didn't do that and that's why you need to have these open board meetings so that you know if there's a concern that the owners know about it that they're involved in the decision-making process and they know that you've taken steps to try to repair it or to try to undo these bad effects you know so that you won't have to go out and spend money on huge repairs and you know so they know the story behind the special assessment before they hear that oh did you hear the board is going to do a special assessment and then everybody gets mad okay so that's why you know and you want to make sure that these issues that might become contentious are discussed at the board meeting so that the owners can hear it and yeah it's not good news it's not good news to say oh well oh you know we've been having all these plumbing problems and you know we're going to hire this engineer and the engineer comes back and says oh you have to replace all your pipes and that's going to cost you 27 million dollars yeah and you want to share that with your owners because maybe you know if you share it with your owners they would have come up with some ideas on how you can address this and you know hiding these decisions you know in private meetings and in executive sessions is not a good thing especially if it turns out that you have to do a special assessment and as I said before nothing's going to get your owners angrier and if you do a special assessment and the first thing they're going to say is why why you guys screwed up again you guys weren't doing your job and this is why it's important in the board for for boards when they have their meetings to discuss all things that deal with the building in these meetings and like I said with the open communications I mean it's it's it's one of the most important things and it might not be pleasant but at least it's it's transparent and uh and and and I think people you know people can deal with bad news and and unpleasant situations but the thing of it is is you got to go through the motions you can't you know put yourself in a cocoon and especially the boards and decide oh well we know better and so we're going to do this in executive session and and I will be getting to executive session because I've been hearing one of the complaints I've been hearing is boards take decisions that are unpopular or might be might be controversial and they stick them in executive session but the statute says executive session is only for certain things and so if you're a board and you're discussing the the pipe replacement project uh and and talking thinking oh we might have to do a special assessment that's not something you do in executive session that's what you do outside with the with the owners present so that they know what's happening and and and in fact the statute let me let me read from the statute there are only certain things that you can do in executive session and the primary reason why you go into executive session is it deals with confidential information that you don't want to disclose in a public meeting okay and so the statute says one of the issues is personnel and personnel is is is very confidential because it might be taking disciplinary action against your employees wages benefits and that's not something that you discuss in a public forum how would you like you know how would you like it if somebody was discussing your job and your performance and your wages in a public forum that's why personnel issues are in executive session another topic that you talk about in in uh executive session is litigation that involves the board or may involve the board and you know so so this involves you know very confidential information because you're talking about exposure if we do this and that we're going to get sued if we do this and if we do this and that maybe we might not get sued so these are discussions that happen in executive session not open to the public and especially with ongoing litigation because you know with ongoing this litigation one of the issues is settlement and so you don't want and settlement is something that usually very private that's discussed between the attorneys for the party so you don't want to discuss it in an open forum with everybody in the whole world okay so that that's an issue that is an executive session matter uh anything that involves attorney client privilege the attorney the the uh association is the client and so anything that deals with attorney client privilege uh is is dealt with in executive session and not in the public portions of the meeting just because it involves an attorney doesn't mean it's an executive session topic like let's say I know with the pandemic you haven't been able to have annual meetings and so you ask your attorney for an opinion as to when you're going to be able to have your annual meeting that is not a subject for executive session there's no confidential information that's involved there's no attorney client privilege that's involved and so those kinds of disc in fact if you're an owner you probably are wondering how come we haven't had our annual meeting and you would probably be interested in that discussion and so it shouldn't be happening in executive session and and for uh or boards who are listening to me if you are uh if you're not sure it's the whether it's executive session and it's not part of these topics call your attorney do not rely on your property manager they're not an attorney they don't have the legal information to answer your question as to whether or not a certain topic is considered executive session material executive session is very limited very very limited so you don't talk an executive session is not a place where you talk about things that you don't want the owners to hear because you're afraid they're going to get mad at you okay you have to remember that executive session is only limited to certain things um uh oh another another topic that is executive session are ongoing negotiation and let's say your your negotiations for some contract uh having to deal with a big project and you're dealing with three or four vendors you don't want to discuss it in a public meeting because somebody in that public meeting may go tell one of the prospective vendors what you're talking about and and those are negotiations that should be confidential until you reach an agreement so like i said those are the only four uh matters uh that have uh that can be discussed in executive session and the things that are involved in an executive session if you sit on a board these are not matters that you go home and you talk to your spouse about or you talk to your uncle joe at a bar the things that are discussed in executive session are discussed there because they're confidential and board members have a fiduciary duty to their association and that means that if it's confidential it doesn't go any further than the people in the room so you don't go home and you don't tell your your husband or your wife what happened in executive session and you don't tell your neighbor and you don't tell your uncle joe uh it's confidential means confidential okay and and and and this is and and uh and what happens is some people you know don't understand confidentiality they go home and they they tell their wife the wife tells the neighbor and before you know and you know like the game the kids play i i don't know what it's called now but when we were kids it was called telephone and what happened is you would whisper something into the person next door and then you would sit around in a circle and see what comes out when it came back at the end and it's different and so that's why with executive session matters if it's confidential it's confidential it means if you're a board member it doesn't leave me it stays with you with the people in the room and when you leave the room then um you know you do not discuss that with anybody else and and with executive session it should be very limited like i said you know it's only for special confidential matters not for stuff that you don't want the owners to hear i mean that would be one of the worst things to use as a rule but anyway well we're gonna have to leave it there because i'm running out of time and but you know you've been watching condo insider on think tech hawaii and today we've been discussing open board meetings and uh i want to thank the viewers for tuning in to this episode and i'm going to be doing next week's show next week's show uh we're going to have senator Sharon moriwaki and she represents i think senate district 12 which is um has a lot of condos i mean that's kakaako Waikiki uh alamoana uh moiliili so anyway and and Sharon was one you know she introduced several bills and uh the the house companion to one of her bills is you know is going up to the governor's office so we're very pleased with it i think one of her other bills also made it through so uh we we should have a very interesting conversation about condo legislation and i'm going to i'm going to ask her to about that ohaw project out there you know across from uh ward warehouse out there by the um uh by alamoana in the marina there and you know what's what's going to happen i mean they they were going to try to build condos out there and uh the legislation that was pending got knocked down but the newspaper says ohaw is still going forward so i don't know what's going to happen so please join me next week uh with Sharon moriwaki and we're going to be talking about condo legislation and maybe the condos that are that ohaw's trying to build uh up there by alamoana okay thank you again for joining us uh hello


This paper proposes a knowledge-based approach to represent geo-visualization knowledge using semantic web technologies, which enables inference for deriving corresponding geometries and portrayals for visualization under different conditions. A prototype system is developed that uses geospatial link data as underlying data and formalizes some geo-visualization knowledge into a knowledge base to visualize the data and provide rich semantics to users, partially forming the foundation for the vision of web of knowledge for geo-visualization. This article was authored by Wei Minghuang and Lars Harry.


Remote sensing techniques can be used to investigate landslides in three different ways, recognizing past or active slope failures, monitoring changes in the terrain over time, and analyzing potential hazards. Recent advances in technology have allowed researchers to better understand the mechanisms behind landslides and how they can be predicted. This article was authored by Marcos Gheoni, Laura Longoni, Valentina Malillo, and others.


Yes, it's a nice new for me especially and it was something that we were talking last weeks but the main thing is for me that I'm involved in a very good project, that's a clear idea and all these first months were fantastic, very positive not only from the players, from the staff, all the people is working in the club and I'm very happy to be here. If I'm thinking about the next year, it's also good. Since I started to coach, I consider this game like something to enjoy the people. When I started in Barça, we always think like that. Anyway, it's the evolution that Popa wanted from the last year and the main thing is that there's many changes in the players, that is also one of the main reasons why we play different. So you have to adapt your style on the place you have.  When you play football with the ball, so when you share this, it's a nice thing. I think they are enjoying and they see every step we are doing is working and that's the most positive thing. That's the point. It's very important to me, it's where I'm from. It's my home club and to be a part of it from the start is something special and something I'm going to hold due to me once I retire. Look, in terms of professionalism, not much. We've been very professional from day one. In terms of facilities, you can see what the club are trying to do and they have plans to do, which is once completed, I think it's going to be massive for the area and massive for the club. We're lucky we have very smart people leading the way in terms of Popa and JT, John Tatsmouth. It's getting bigger and better every year, so it's scary to see what the club is going to be like in 10 years. We keep doing the same things. The biggest worry would be if you weren't creating the chances, but we're creating them. We're dominating teams, especially in the second half when our fitness is taking over. All it takes is one goal to go in and then the floodgates will open, so it's just a matter of time.


I'm just going down all of the list of names of everybody who has Guest and I'm gonna write a whole list gonna cut them up Fold them up put them in a pot and pick out the winner Rebecca Eileen Eileen. I'm really sorry if I've said that wrong. I'm really bad at pronouncing things Rebecca Eileen I think she has suggested that will I draw two names for One for the planet and one for the milestone court cards So thank you so much for pointing that out because I literally didn't even think about that I was just gonna give away both But there are quite a few people that actually a lot more people than I expected to actually answer this So thank you so much to everybody that's answered. I literally I Expected like three people to answer so I think Rebecca You've got a really good idea there and I am gonna split it into two winners I think it's just deciding who gets what so I'm really really really sorry. I Think it's really good idea though. So it makes it fair. I think I just hope that they go to a good home And I hope whoever wins these uses them because they're absolutely amazing. So Yeah, we'll see how we go anyway. So I have printed I've decided instead of writing it to print it out from word because I've literally just copied and pasted from YouTube Just to say me writing every single name individually and it's just saved me a load of time So I have a few of these people's names on That's the first one. I'm gonna cut them all up individually Fold them put them in a part. Take one out. Just want to show you that there's everybody's names. Okay. I have for everybody's names in here In my really tatty Amazon box, I'm sorry You know, maybe when I'm qualified and I'm earning money I can afford a really fancy box to do these things with so yeah, so are you ready? Sorry, I've just had to close my curtain because the Sun well You can see it here's really shining into my eyes and it's burning my eyes. Let's start again So I've got all the names in here. Give them a shake out. We are going to do this First name are you ready? Yay First person is done. Okay second person Haven't decided which is which Okay, are you ready? Is Naomi Naomi 77 who actually entered on Instagram. So thank you Amazing. So now we need to decide What's who's got what and yeah, so I think I'm just going to write planner on one milestone cards on another bit of paper Pick a name and whichever one gets which does that seem fair guys? I don't know So, okay, so let me make those little extra pieces of paper which I am going to write because it's only two names And we'll come back. Okay. So I've just moved out the way of the Sun.  I'm going to do this live Well, not live, but I'm going to keep rolling not going to edit it. So I don't want you to think I'm editing things, you know one's going in there What's this one milestone? Let's put that in There you go Two relatively equal sized papers Going in They're both in oh god I don't know if you can see Yeah, okay, you can see that they're both in there Shake them up not looking. Um, so this is for Hang on. I've got the two names here as well. So let me just drop one Um Naomi, okay, so Naomi this is for you. Are you ready? Sorry, I've just it was stuck in the little thing. So yeah, it's still there ready Naomi you are going to get the planner And that means the milestone cards you are going to have those for I hope that's all right guys One of you is going to get the planner one. He's going to get the milestone cards So if you want to send me your details and I will post them literally in the morning I'm on the way to the RCN careers fair So you'll be watching this on Monday I will post them on Tuesday. Okay, and you should get them by Wednesday because it's all first I'll put it first class and everything but yeah, and let me know if you receive them as well. Please tell me and Yeah, so yeah, thanks guys. Thanks so much to everybody that entered and commented. I've had such amazing comments So thank you so so much. Thank you for celebrating with me at a thousand mark I don't even know why it's a real achievement, but it feels like a real achievement. So thank you so much Thanks to everybody that it that do follow my journey and get involved and help me along and give me emotional support when I need it So thank you so so much. I hope everyone's all right. I hope you're having a great day I hope you're having a great week if you've got exams up coming up if you've got assignments due in You've got placements coming up if you're on placement hating life Let me know. I'm really sorry that you're going through that. It is tough. It is stressful But you know what? I wouldn't be anywhere else. I love nursing and it's amazing and I'm sure you do as well And I've said this before you know what one bad day on a placement doesn't mean a bad career It's one bad day and we all get stressed. We all get down even when you're qualified You're going to get stressful days. You're going to get down sometimes, but they pass by and Majority of the time 90% of the time nursing is amazing and you absolutely love it and it's rewarding and those days Completely outweigh the bad. So yeah, so just remind yourselves. You've got this. It's going to be okay And if you don't know something it doesn't matter Nobody knows it all and that's the best thing and it's the safest way to practice for our patients So yeah, anyway, I'm going to stop talking now. I don't know why just suddenly went into all that for another vlog I am going to put out a vlog this week about exam stress actually talking about that That's probably why I'm going to put out a vlog this week about exam stress managing exam stress and how to sort of Organize your workload maybe sort of combine All of it into one just because it is stressful sometimes and it is hard So it'd be nice to do like a vlog on different ways to cope and things. So that's going to come. I'll probably post that Wednesday Yeah, I'll probably post that Wednesday because I think sunday next sunday's vlog because I'm at the rcn conference And I've got a couple of things this week to talk about I'll do that for the sunday vlog So Wednesday will be exam stress Wednesday or thursday depending how much time I've got and yeah Either Wednesday or Thursday. I will put that vlog out. So watch out for that If you haven't subscribed subscribe hit the little bell and you'll get the notification when the video comes in If you don't want notifications because I'm one that hates notifications turn the bell off Um, and you won't get those notifications, but just come back and check in if you want to So that's it.  Sorry. I've started again. So I'm going to shut up now Thank you so so much again, and I shall see you soon