Good morning. Good afternoon and good evening to wherever you are in the world. I'm Eniola Mafei I am the lead for 2030 vision on technology and sustainable development of the World Economic Forum and I have the distinct pleasure of moderating this session on an idea and insight with Marianne Croke and Lindyway Matladi This dialogue is between two inspirational women founders Innovators where they reveal new models of thinking that challenge our traditional mindsets and our approaches and It's no better time than this so in addition to the human and the health toll the unprecedented impact of COVID-19 on all aspects Reminds us that business as usual just simply isn't an option and There isn't there there are need for us to tackle some of the issues with the pandemic and the longer-term social and economic and environmental challenges as well and Here's an opportunity for technology the fourth industrial revolution technologies can play a major role here and a report that we recently launched in January of 2020 identified that 70% of the 169 targets of the sustainable development goals could actually be enabled and achieved by our existing technologies so this is a unique opportunity to build back smarter better and stronger and more inclusive using the full breadth of expertise and Opportunities and different perspectives that innovators such as Marianne and Lindyway possess So at this point I want to introduce our phenomenal speakers Marianne Croke his vice president of engineering at Google and also vice president of site Reliability at YouTube and most notably part of the reason why we're here She's credited with developing the voice over IP So that is any conversation. We're having here is thanks to her. So, thank you and Lindyway Matladi She's chief executive officer at African Teen Geeks and also a recent recipient of the Schwab Foundation 2020 award So at this point I want to welcome my wonderful speakers who I've had the pleasure of Introducing and I want to start with one particular question that I think is really on our minds Around the opportunity that we see I'll start with you Marianne What is the biggest opportunity you see for change in our post pandemic world? Well, thank you so much for that lovely introduction and I'm very grateful for you to host this and for me to be here with Lindyway I'm Probably the most significant thing that I see that will cause things to change as we all hope that they will Is the fact that we have this increased awareness of the inequities in the world? I think COVID has made that abundantly clear for people We've had much more time to reflect and we've been given Insights that normally in our very busy distractive lives. We would not have so I think if we can zero in on on that Gift almost right that gift that we've been given to see what the what the world is truly like and where the gaps are Needed in the world. I think it would be so beneficial to address that that huge amount of inequity and I know it's just a follow-on question for your to this point I know that Lindyway has dropped off when we've lost connection with her But I wanted to call back to what you had mentioned Around the history and the context of this and why it's so important that we think about those From a historical context to bring us and learn from those from that to be able to kind of start thinking about the future and those You know, if you look at the the history of innovation in the world it often Comes in Burst, right? There's like scientific revolutions where people just have these amazing Maritime ship and then there's all this new invention around it and and the most interesting thing is that it typically happens periods of desperation and periods of great turmoil Where it's clear that no one wants to change I mean no one wants to stay the way that they are and everyone is very motivated for something new and something that will alleviate all the all the chaos I would say and until Even though it's a it's a quite a painful time for the world the fact that it's global the fact that we're all in this I think is it will be a stimulus for us to move ahead in a very Invigorating way, I would say because we'll be highly motivated to do so and I know even in my own personal life Most of what I've done that I feel that has been significant in terms of its impact on others it's typically during times of stress and difficulty for me, so Even though as I said, you know, we've lamented that this is a is a Horrible time in history. I think we can benefit from it as well, and I think we will see that I mean, I'm really fascinated by the By the work that's been done eating in vaccinations and how quickly that has been accomplished And I'm sure there's many more things to come. We'll never want to experience this again and I think in in terms of we've talked about this around the Opportunity and what could we see as being one of those levers that could be able to do that? You mentioned the vaccine and and great strides that have been taken even over the past couple of weeks and everyone's with bated breath of when there's an opportunity to to Really delve into this new normal in ways that allow for greater mobility and and connection, right? Yeah, and you've done that in your in your work and in technology you've created Literally a connection point Through voice over IP and are there some things you've learned from from inventing you are the holder of about 200 patents from what I understand and learning through Failing and learning through Research and development and decision-making are there some things that you can draw from your experience that would be valuable to those who are even listening today and thinking about Joining this quest to kind of frame the future better. Yes. Yes. Yeah, that's it. That's a great question. Thank you so much what I would say to that is Almost all my inventions stemmed from failure And it could be the case that it was a failure of like what just happened to linduway in in terms of dropping off You know, we can think of ways where we could maybe automatically Through the network connect her back in So it's like you you have to have this mindset when you look at problems in the world that they are Solvable right and all they're waiting for is for someone to come along and fix that and realize that you just don't have to be a victim of Trouble and problems that you can actually rise above them and fix them and then In the journey to fix them right it also involves a lot of failure. It's it's not the case that Typically, I don't know of any case, but I'm sure it must exist where it's like love it first sight You know, it's like no things evolve and you have to keep experimenting and perfecting things You know when voice over IP first came into being it was a total failure and many many people believe That putting voice over the internet was was ridiculous and it would be it was like a toy And and there were many many skeptics and they were right. They were right for that time They were right but with a lot of work and a lot, you know, a lot of testing a lot of experimentation You see what we've accomplished today and it's very ubiquitous and it's in white use and and Thank goodness that you know people had the for to to keep going despite it seeming to be impossible and Kind of a silly venture to go a path to go down So, you know, I'm sure from today's viewpoint. It looks like You know, we're in it in the state of of where we are and we'll be here and you know we'll just keep waiting for something to change and We don't we don't realize how much power we have to make that change come to be and I I just think we have to believe and Realize that inventors are just humans and they're very much like us and anyone can have You know an innovative idea And we have to share those ideas Collaborate with each other so that they can be realized. It's it's not something that That inventors are very esoteric people that you find in history books and that are odd and strange They're just everyday common people truly Thank you so much for that and especially the the failing forward Concept, but you know inventors are getting younger and younger these days. You probably at Google you probably see those who are creating and and You know who are under the age of 30 and much of the world and those who we're speaking to you today maybe very young and Trying to make sense of the world but also shape the world in the future And I know with our conversation with Lindy way as well was she works very much with young people With the skills provide with the skills and the opportunities to be able to shape the future to disrupt it To be inspirational to use all of those energies towards that and also as a as a woman Marianne you are have mentioned before about the unique perspective of coming in as an outsider And into this space for technology and I I guess my question is what do you believe would be? some of the qualities that women and women of color Have to bring to tech and innovation, especially in these times where it's very uncertain And they may be uniquely placed to address these challenges And I know I'll also bring in Lindy way to that question as well about the unique place for women and women of color all over the world to To be part of this. Yes before we Discuss that I'd like to go back to what you first said about children, right? and I find and I want anyone who's young to realize that children have like a very very rich Imaginations and that's what you need to have for invention is it's almost to be childlike in your understanding of the world, which is a little naive, but also Not inhibited by what's possible I Love working with children because they're so creative and they they're just bursting with new ideas and Linda way I think you know in the work that you do it's so inspiring Because I do believe that that the technologies and the innovations that we will see Ten twenty years from now are stemming from the very minds that you're working with Can you talk a little bit about your work? Yeah, I mean for me I actually agree with you because I love working with children for exactly the same reasoning because When they are passionate, but they also still hopeful about the future and they don't You know look at things as this may not work for them Everything is possible and I'm with the work that we've done with the kids I mean a lot of the children, you know, I want to be a waitress I want to be a driver because that's what they've seen But at the end of the projects when you've started showing them what is possible and start asking them at the end of the program What do you want to become then they tell you I want to be an innovator I want to build the next Google And that's really what you want the kids to have that and that imagination and the passion for them to achieve their dreams Imagination passion and energy and bringing that to especially what we need now Thank you Sorry, I was going to address your your the last part of your statement about what you know with women and particularly women of color Often we say we want to seat at the table. We want to fit in we want to be part of whatever is We see a significant and many times I have felt, you know It's really to our advantage that we don't fit in that we don't have that seat at the table Even though we may be sitting at the table We may we may not be we're never going to be you know part of the club in the way that someone who looks Exactly like the other members of that club will be but that to me again is is often a benefit because it allows us to step back and really be able to observe in Quite an objective way as to where the gaps are and what's needed for change if you're very included and Need to feel like you're part of a group a lot of times that kind of spoils your perspective Because there's this temptation to think like the group and to conform to the group Whereas invention and innovation Requires you to think out of the box to be unique to to be different and just by our very nature And the way that society has constructed things. We are different. When do we have you in encountered that in your life as well? Yeah, I mean even now with a lot of the work that I've done you would think that you know when I work in the room There's some she would be she knows why she's doing but I still have to sell myself all all the time You know my qualification that I'm educated But for me it's also if you think about the work that you have done Mary Anne And you know being the reason that we having this session today is because of the innovations of the work that you have done if you think about it in during the The pandemic business was gonna stop if it doesn't because of everything that you have done over the years So you would think that with somebody like you sitting where you are as a woman of color It will be easy for someone like me to work in because now there's there's somebody who's Who's paved the way so instead of assuming I can't do it like you know There's a person's already done it, but it's not like that and so we still have to fight to be included We still have to prove, you know, I was telling My kids that sometimes some people they're working and they're assumed to be competent But for if you are a black and you are a woman you have to prove that you know It's not always your degree. It's not even always how well you've done at school But for me, I really feel like moving forward There are ways in which we can change that but I also feel like making sure that people like yourself are Visible and the work that you have done, you know, you get the credit that you deserve It will make it. I hope fully well eventually make it easy for somebody like me if I say, you know At my role model is Marianne hopefully just mentioning your name would be like oh, she must be good if she looks up to Marianne, you know Yeah, yes, I mean I think Probably many people Like you and I have been a bit in a position where we're the only one of our kind or We have that, you know, very unique identity and It's not the most comfortable feeling in the world But I do agree with you that if we can serve others by the position that we're in and open the door for others Then it's it's it's a benefit and you know, it's fine and Stressful, I guess to be the only one but you don't want to remain in that position You want others to come along and and hopefully by looking at someone hearing their voice seeing that they're Human and that they know some people can look one way or the other way But they kind of look a little bit like me. Hopefully that does help to Cause people to know to develop the confidence that they too will be here So I definitely agree Yeah, no, exactly. I think if you think about if we're looking at if you want to change diversity in stand um visibility of Of women like yourself, but also for me I mean I keep telling everywhere goes your way. I tell people about you all the time and that's also because of um the humility that you have is that if somebody the first time when I spoke to you I was just Just gobsmocked about how approachable how kind and how gracious you you you are And and and also the willingness to send down the ladder for somebody like me to be able to climb and the accessibility that you have Me being in South Africa and you leading one of the the biggest engineering I mean engineering companies in in in the world really as a black woman It's just inspiring and it also, you know for me It inspires me to make sure that I can also do what you are doing for me What you've done and making sure that the ladder always is always behind me and everybody You know that the generation coming after me can climb as well Well, um, thank you so much for your kind words But I am inspired by you and I want to congratulate you on your award And the the tremendous work that you're doing. Can you share a bit more about that? Yeah, no, thank you. I'm I'm actually one of the the 2020 sharp sharp foundation social innovator of the year So that has been really a great surprise and and a great alcoholic for me that I feel like is also You know have helping to open doors But also making sure that I am visible to a lot of the girls that you know that Growing up exactly the way, you know, I grew up and Making them believe that if they work hard if they commit one day also, you know, the world can open up for them So that has really been I'm I'm really grateful for that. But I still I'm still more grateful for you know, having you in my life Yes, you know and as women and and people of color I think especially during this time of covet. I think the impact of covet has been much stronger on you know our demographic and As as you know tying it back to the conversation that we had in the beginning about Change and innovation coming from distress I think we as as fitting into that group understand How profoundly impacted Women and especially women of color have been both in terms of the disease itself but also Due to the fact of what's happened with child care And I don't want to call it a burden because children are blessings not burdens, but it definitely has disrupted careers and and the the ability to contribute to the workforce And if that may take quite a long time to heal And given that, you know, I think it's incumbent upon many of us who have not been yet impacted in that way to really try to Figure out how to as quickly as possible Correct that situation And I And I know that there is space for more more faces that can provide the solutions and the solving of problems Because I think to your point Marianne. There's a proximity to those problems You're able to understand it because you you understand the issues and can therefore solve for it in a way that is That has the same kind of intent and and interest and I I wonder if You know, we have many people listening here who are also inventors Innovators who are disruptors in their own circles and spaces Is what advice would you give and and Lindy way? What advice that do you give the the the young women and and and And men that you work with as well. What advice would you give them in this point in? You know with 20 where what date is it in november of of 2020 and looking forward to the future What advice would you give them? I think um, you need to ask I mean for any career that you are passionate about You study and make sure that you know The people that have paved the way but but also understand what they have been through because Most of the time you saw focus on you know on on on the arrival Like now you can see Marianne being where she is but the journey is just as important Because you know to make sure that you don't have the the kind of unrealistic expectations of what is there But also, I mean of what it takes to get there But you know when you have somebody that you look up to Maybe sometimes you just have to reach out to them and say, you know, I like I've done like, you know With marion and say, you know, I look up to see all the work that you're doing You know, um, I would like to get to know you and and you know, most of the time actually you'll find that They will say yes. I mean the first messenger sent to her. She said yes So I think we um ask but work, you know, you need to study you need to study those people be good You have to be good at what you at what you want to become, you know, you have to um I always say the only way to get doors open for you. You just have to be impressive So work so hard that you can't be ignored Work so hard that you can't be ignored. That's powerful Marianne any advice? I'm sure you have lots, but what would you Advice when we said it Beautifully, but what I would also say too is that um, a lot of invention kind of happens You know outside in the world and you're collaborating with others But the mindset for it is internal to you And despite whether or not you're accepted or how difficult your life may be Kind of go inside of yourself And and find that childlike Hope and imagination and just keep that Growing and nurture that throughout your life Um, and don't let that die off as you as you grow older because that's where I think your source of Change is going to be Oh, that's phenomenal. So With the The advice around asking around stepping into that greatness um And also asking the right questions and don't be and be bold in your ask I think that's lindi way you were talking about being extremely bold with your ask and stepping in there And also to keep that childlike Intrigue interest In many ways As you walk through and uh, you know, it's december 31st 2020 And you're looking forward to the to the next year What gives you hope and what gives you um, yeah strength To invent and to keep that childlike Hope alive I'll start with you mariana and we may use that as our closing I would like to hear from you rather than hearing from me Yeah, I I feel like When you look at the amount of need there is in the world and and you Forget about your own circumstances, but you get in touch with where the pain points are in the world That that's what gives me Both the motivation to keep going and and thinking of of new things that can help um But also the the concern to keep going and the necessity of that especially pulling other people along so that You leave a pathway Once you're, you know, once you leave the earth that other people Can step into your place Thank you for that Lindy way as you are Looking forward with your also with your With african teen geeks What are you hopeful for what gives you the motivation? Um, I think for me being in education and obviously in africa is um Just knowing that there's small change no matter how small, you know The the contributions are making it makes a difference And so even if it just helps one child One day to you know end up having the opportunities that I've had, you know And that all came through education, you know, there was no trust fund There was there was really nothing except just working hard and staying in in in education So for me, that's really what I want to I want to try and do and make sure that as many children as possible They also will get Education and so that they can also break the cycle of poverty and disadvantage Not just for themselves for their families too Great, um, I think we've got so much to learn from all of you and um, I want to thank you Thank you, Marianne and thank you, Lindy way For in our in yoruba We usually talk about sorosoke and you've probably seen that quite a lot which is to speak up And I thank you so much for speaking up and speaking such wisdom over the past couple of minutes and um at this point It's we know this um summit is the pioneers of change And I'm so honored to have you as as pioneers of change joining me in this important discussion And we have um, and this is also a time for thinking around the social entrepreneurship And why it's so critical to tie that into some of the problem solving and the solving of of our biggest wickedest issues In the world and thank you both for joining me for this for this conversation Thank you all um wherever you are in the world for joining us And we hope that you have um notebooks filled with with good advice Thank you


Hi, everyone. Today I'm going to talk about the golden cage of financial regulation. In the world we live in, finance hasn't been the same since the early 1970s, when in the United States a law was passed called the Bank Secrecy Act. This was signed by Richard Nixon, or Dick, as we call him in America.  What it required was that banks operate as a surveillance mechanism for the government. This was then expanded internationally to become the framework of international finance. We have today the requires every financial transaction to have both the sender and the beneficiary, as they call it, identified by every participant in the transaction. Your bank, their bank, everyone in between, has to know who is being paid, who is paying them, why they are paying them, what they are paying them for. This turned all banks into surveillance organizations. They became deputized into law enforcement to fight the war on drugs, the war on pot, the war on traffic violations, the war on drinking, the war on something, the war on Syria, the war on Yemen, whatever the current war is. Gradually banks became cops. The problem is that banks can't be banks and cops at the same time, but they no longer have a choice. They become cops, and in fact the cops in most banks rule what happens. Most banks today have what's called the compliance department. In some banks it's actually called the BSA department, the Bank's Secrecy Act department. They can overrule everyone in the bank. Remember in the old Soviet movies where you had the submarine commander? He's on the deck of the nuclear submarine, and he's not actually in charge. Next to him is a kind of a dark suit, who's like, you can do it. He's the Politburo representative of the Communist Party, who's actually in charge in the submarine. The captain doesn't run the submarine, it's the political operative next to him who decides whether they can fire the weapons or not. They're constantly talking to the Kremlin on one phone and telling the captain what to do on the other side. Of course, that's not how we run American submarines, because freedom! No, the captain is a strong man who decides everything on his own without political interference. Away from all of the politics makes the last minute decisions life and death. So we could know who the bad guys were and who the good guys were by who exhibited freedom. It's funny now that the way we run our banks is that the bank CEO and the person you talk to in the bank isn't in charge. There is a person in a dark suit talking to the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department and saying, can we send money to that person? No, you can't. Sorry. No, no, no, it's okay. We fixed it. They can't because they're actually in charge in the bank. They're actually in charge. In fact, if you have a wire transfer sent to you, and that wire transfer gets stuck, and by stuck I mean it doesn't get through to you for seven months, let's say, as a random hypothetical example that happened to me, then what happens is they don't tell you why the wire is stuck.  And they say, we haven't received it. And then you go to the other party and you say, you didn't send it. And they're like, no, but I have a receipt.  And eventually they figure out that the reason they haven't seen it is because the bank's security department is keeping them in the dark. They haven't told the customer service people that there is a wire transfer because they're not allowed to talk to them until the security problem has been resolved. This is how we run banks in the free world. I don't need to tell you how they run banks in the unfree world. Actually, I can't. Exactly the same way. Exactly the same way. Because one of the interesting things is that these regulations now become the basis for international settlements of transactions.  They tried to do that to the Swiss and threatened them into breaking their bank secrecy laws, their privacy laws they had, and to go after people who had bank accounts in Switzerland. So Switzerland doesn't have privacy in its banking anymore because they're now operating by these international laws. And you have to think, how did this happen? How did the banks allow themselves to become captured by political operatives, to become effectively police officers, or effectively have police officers that they pay to tell them what they can and can't do? And they do it against their own commercial interests. Let me give you an example. Right now, recently in fact, we legalized marijuana in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California recreationally. Smoke till you drop, anytime you want. Anyone 21 or older, walk into a shop, smoke as much as you want. But none of the companies that sell it have bank accounts. Because the federal government has not yet legalized it, and they will not let the banks bank the cannabis industry. Now, this is an industry that in Colorado alone brought in $1 billion in taxes up to now. That's in two years. $1 billion in taxes, which means that they're moving ten times that in revenue. All of which could be part of the commercial activity of a bank. In fact, in any rational society, that would be the smart thing to do.  Which makes the whole place very, very insecure and dangerous. So basically, in order to fight the war on drugs that we've already lost, because it was always going to be lost. And even though the states have stopped fighting the war on drugs, the federal government is still fighting it... with the last cops they can use in every state, the banks. It's insanity, and that's how it works. And this happens all over the place. The same thing is happening to sex workers, the same thing is happening to gambling organizations, the same thing is happening to gun merchants in the United States. And you may not like one, the other, or all of these categories. But many of these activities are perfectly legal activities. So banks are being prevented from participating in perfectly legal activities by policy that is set. At some level in the Department of Justice, not by law. They can say, we don't want you banking this type of organization, even if they're engaging in legal activities. So basically they're passing secret laws, they're passing laws that are not subject to the legislature. That they don't have to have a vote, that are not subject to democracy. They're ruling by fiat. How did the banks get into a situation where they have to deny customers, even good customers, even secure customers, because they have become cops? It all started in a very simple way. It started by demonizing specific segments of society in order to find an evil cartel, an evil organization, evil someone. They said, well, you can't give banking to evil people. Forget the fact that for 20,000 years evil people could use money perfectly well, just by using cash, the original anonymous peer-to-peer currency. And civilization did not destroy itself, right? But once that decision was made and then followed through, the category of what became evil people just kept getting wider and wider and wider. I met someone who came to me at a conference in Berlin a couple of weeks ago, who said to me, I've been living in the West for 15 years, and I can't get a bank account. For 15 years I can't get a bank account. The moment I fill in the application, my name and place of birth, I am denied. I am Iranian. I was born in Iran. I have nothing to do with Iran. I have no contacts with Iran. I have no relation with the government of Iran. I don't like the politics of the government of Iran. I cannot get a bank account. All I want to do is deposit my paycheck so I can buy groceries, but no bank will allow me to bank with them. I have done nothing wrong. I didn't choose where I was born.  Banks agreed to these rules at first, and then the rules got wider and wider and wider. And now it's accepted wisdom. Of course you should be able to check everybody who makes a transaction. Really? Why? Because bad people might use money. We're going to base the entire basis of a society on a blanket law that applies to everyone just because some bad people might abuse systems. Well, guess what? Bad people are going to abuse systems either way, right? But what we're doing is we're punishing millions, billions of people who have done nothing wrong simply to preserve this illusion of security, to preserve this bourgeois illusion of security. And you know what? That's unethical. In fact, it's evil. Condemning people to poverty so that you can feel safe with no basis in fact or evidence that it actually makes you safe. In fact, it does the opposite because people in poverty resort to violence and have no access to justice in order to preserve that. We do evil on an institutional basis worldwide. The banks started with this gilded cage. The cage they built around them has bars of gold because it was a deal, a quid pro quo. In return for fulfilling these regulations, the banks get the ability to get away with criminal activities for which they are never punished. When they get caught money laundering, it's a minor fine and they get caught again, and again, and again, and again. And with them, every single bank has done money laundering in the order of billions of dollars. And not really for my Iranian friends who can't get a bank account. No, for the Sinaloa drug cartel, right? For Pablo Escobar, drug dealers, terrorists. Because terrorists get funded by states and intelligence agencies through banks in dollars. And so we've created this crazy system where mega crimes can be committed as long as you have a banking license, as long as you do surveillance on behalf of the government because the ultimate goal is not to eliminate crime. That's ridiculous, right? The ultimate goal is control. So what do you call a system of control where the ultimate goal is to be able to see every transaction that is ever done in the world of finance? Total control. I believe we call that totalitarianism, right? And rational societies don't believe in totalitarianism, but in our financial system we've accepted it. When Edward Snowden came out with a revelation that phone calls and internet activity was being monitored by intelligence agencies, specifically the Five Eyes of which Germany is a participant, when we found out that the CIA and the NSA are monitoring Angela Merkel's calls, right? People were outraged. But the fact that every Visa, MasterCard, and bank transaction you do is shared with all five intelligence agencies, and on top of those data streams piggyback all the other intelligence agencies that have managed to hack into this data, ah, it's okay. We should watch everybody. Just in case they do something wrong. Think about how much power that gives to some people. The power to control what you spend when you spend it, the power to deny you access to finance and bank accounts, and more importantly, the power to see all of your habits, your location at any time you use one of your cards, and who you associate with in terms of political associations or just friends and family. But don't worry. Facebook's making a digital currency. This quid pro quo agreement allowed banks to effectively prevent competition because doing compliance is expensive, but it's a very good cost of business because you can pass it on directly to customers. The people being hurt, they're little people. The big people can afford lawyers and accountants and better banks and other places that are more flexible, let's say. Places like Panama, places like Malta, places like Switzerland. The little people who want to bank in downtown Munich or in London or in New York, well, they're just little people. Doesn't matter, my friend, he's Iranian. He should have known better. He should have known better. He should have tele-transported from the womb of his mother to a better country before he was born. See, these little people pay the price. We all pay the price in higher transaction costs than friction and the fact that an international wire transfer takes forever, but we pay the price in a much bigger way in terms of reduced economic and commercial activity because friction results in higher costs for everything. So this introduces enormous friction into our financial system in order to achieve unachievable political aims that give power to the wrong people. We pay the price in money and then we pay the price, again, in freedom, in the erosion of our democratic institutions and our freedoms. But the banks don't. The banks have this wonderful tool that says, if it costs me $10 million in order to do compliance each year and I can hire 300 people to staff the compliance department, that means that the smallest competitor who can enter the banking business needs at least $10 million to start. And that's before they even get to banking license. So we set the barrier to entry so high that the amount of competition that happens in banking is reduced. As a result, the big banks are able to be more efficient than the smaller banks because that $10 million in compliance costs is a smaller percentage of their revenue than all of the small banks.  Six banks. The Western world is dominated by six banks. All in just 45 years. In 45 years, we're down to six major banks and they all have different names but they're all owned by the same six banks. Pretty much. There's a few little ones that are still struggling. There's these new ones that have fancy names like N26 and Monzo and things like that and they're fighting the hard fight. They're trying to go online. And as soon as they try to compete, the big banks go, well, they should really follow the regulations more closely. And so they either have to turn themselves into the exact same model that the big banks are following, which is unprofitable for them. They have to stop competing by doing innovation because the innovative things they want to do all make it easier for bad people to get banking. So as a result, they have to reduce the number of customers they take in and eventually what happens is what's been happening to me in banking for the past 25 years.  And it works great for five years and they get bought by a bigger bank. And within two months, it's all over.  And I switch banks to a new, young, hip, cool bank.   The cage is made of gold. And they like it because it's shiny. It keeps out the competitors. It's a comfy cage. So the bottom line is that this golden cage that has been built up around the banks gives them the ability to prevent competitors from entering the space. Every time a new competitor comes in, like PayPal for example, they start off idealistic. PayPal started with the idea of building the internet of money. They wanted to use the internet to bypass regulations. And then they got sued and investigated and investigated and sued because the banks pay for the politicians to make sure that the cartel stays in place, right? It's funny that we use the term cartel to talk about drugs and oil, et cetera. But here we have a $114 trillion industry that is dominated by six regionally controlling players. And we don't call that a cartel. I wonder why. It's almost as if they're the most powerful cartel of all, so powerful that they can make sure that no newspaper is ever going to call them a cartel. Because then they'd lose all of their funding and advertising. And no politician is going to call them a cartel because they'd lose their job. And none of the regulators are going to call them a cartel or dare to break them up. In fact, they don't even dare to find them. In fact, they don't even dare to put them in jail when they take away the homes of a million people with straight-up fraud that's been caught on tape where they're saying, we know these mortgages are fraudulent, but they're so, so profitable. And nobody goes to jail. That's a cartel. That's the behavior of a cartel. So let's say it again, banking is a cartel. Well, guess what? A cartel buster just came in the door on January 3rd, 2009, with the invention of an open public blockchain called Bitcoin. And that cartel is now over. They had a golden cage that allowed them to keep out competitors. And it was shiny and it was nice. But now there's this thing outside the cage. And they're like, that shouldn't be there. That should be in here. Why is it out there? You can't let them do whatever they want. They're gonna fund criminals. No, no, not criminals like our friends. The other kind of criminals. Poor criminals, not rich criminals. We got that market, right? They're gonna find poor criminals and poor terrorists, not nation-state terrorists, we got that one too. They're gonna find poor terrorists and perhaps even poor immigrants, right? Not rich immigrants, like the wife of our president. No, poor immigrants, like all the other people who are in concentration camps in America, right? They're gonna give them bank accounts. I was in a banking conference where at the end, a lady asked me at Q&A, why should we give illegals bank accounts? And the question shocked me, first of all, because of the use of the word illegals to refer to human beings, but secondly, because of the audacity of that question. Are you not a commercial entity that is supposed to facilitate banking? Since when did you become the moral police, right? So I answered in the best way I could, which was you shouldn't give illegals bank accounts. We will. In fact, we'll give them banks on their smartphone where they're the CEO so they can compete with you. Bitcoin is an anomaly and it brought 4,000 other anomalies to date over the last 10 years. All of these anomalies refuse to play by the rules and the reason they refuse to play by the rules is because most of them don't have identifiable leaders or companies. So the playbook of the banks and they go through these steps and every time they face competition is one, can we buy it, right? If we buy it and shut it down, it's not a risk. Or we buy it and we kind of hold it very close, very, very close. Stop breathing and then it stops breathing and then we've killed it and then it doesn't compete anymore, right? So you get the old bank and they buy this really, really innovative bank and you watch it asphyxiate over two months until there's no innovation left. All of the creative people quit within a week, right? Because they can see what's going to happen next, right? First day they come in and they say, this is very good, we really appreciate your creativity. Now, cut your hair, put on a suit, better shoes, come in at nine in the morning, okay? Good, thank you.  And there goes your innovative group out the door and that bank is over. So buy, first rule is buy. Second rule is compete viciously in ways that are illegal in order to shut them down, right? Interference, classic cartel interference. If that doesn't work, third rule is sue. And the fourth and best one is get the government to regulate them, regulate them harder, regulate them mercilessly, pass a few new laws to make sure that what they're doing that's different from what we're doing is not allowed. And if that doesn't work, shut them down by using the government as your cartel enforcer, right? Essentially the government becomes the Sicario for the banks. It's really a weird relationship, a very weird relationship. So that's the playbook. So, Bitcoin comes on the stage and the banks go, okay, great, buy them, we can't, they're not a company. And if we start buying up all the Bitcoin, it's just gonna get more valuable. And then you won't be able to buy it all, we'll just make the people who invented it richer and then they'll be able to fight us.   So I don't know what else we could do, like some of them even get up on stage and call us criminals now. They're getting really audacious. Oh, okay, well then let's get the government to regulate them. Well, we tried that and the government, they regulated the exchanges and gradually what they've done is they've been able to turn all of the exchanges into banks. So it kind of feels like winning, but then we realize that the more we close the on-ramps and off-ramps, the more some of these weirdos just stay inside the crypto economy and stop trading for fiat. And then we really can't control them because they start selling their labor and products and services directly for crypto and paying their employees directly in crypto and they never exchange it for euros and dollars. In fact, they even turn this into a slogan and they call it huddle. And the banker goes, what does that mean? I think it means hold on for dear life. It doesn't, it doesn't. It's just hold misspelled. So they huddle, I don't know. I don't know what it means. And then they make funny memes with monkeys and dogs, the Shiba Inu dogs, like smiling and saying, wow, how crypto, awesome. I don't understand any of it. So what we did was we tried to sell the currency suddenly to crash it and it crashed, but some of them just held and then it goes up again. And we've done that eight times and that didn't work. Okay, so make the government sue them. I mean, we've already put a whole bunch of them in jail. All of the ones who tell us what their name is, we put them in jail, but other than that, there's all of these other people who have it and we don't know who they are because they don't touch the banking system so we can't really put them in jail.  Well, we can't. Here's the thing. This is really frustrating and it's fundamentally unfair and I really feel for the bankers because it was so nice inside that golden cage and they really wanted to invite everybody into this nice regulatory cartel. But this rogue organization is really ruining the game, right? This has been a very profitable game, but this rogue organization that is really a disorganization is ruining the game and that's fundamentally unfair. If you look at the psychology of fairness, it's something that as human beings we feel very, very strongly. It's a very fundamental part of what keeps society together. One of the fascinating things that I've read is that this is not just a phenomenon of human beings but also our closest animal relatives, primates, right? So our closest relatives are bonobos and chimpanzees and they exhibit a very strong sense of fairness. So do gorillas, so do other kinds of apes and monkeys and other primates. So if you do the simple experiment, you have two monkeys in a cage or two chimpanzees in a cage next to each other and you put one grape in front of one and one grape in front of the other and they both eat the grape and they're very, very happy.  And the one that just got one grape looks over the two grapes and goes, it's screaming at the other monkey as if it's his fault. And then it will take the one grape that it just got which is still better than zero grapes which is still the same amount of grapes that it got yesterday and it will throw it at the researcher and scream in their cage. Why? Because it's unfair. Because that sense of justice is something that is really important in a social animal, right? It's really important to feel that fairness is part of our surroundings. Without the feeling of fairness, without the feeling of justice, we start feeling unmoored from society. We become isolated and depressed, right? It can have a very serious psychological toll on your psyche if you don't believe that justice exists in some fundamental way. If not in this universe, which it doesn't, of course, at least in the society of people around you. So fairness is important. So when faced with a system of two sets of rules, how do we respond as human beings? If I have to follow one set of rules, but then I suddenly notice that another person in the same situation as me has to follow another set of rules, maybe an easier set of rules, right? Even though I've been following these rules for a very long time, suddenly I feel a sense of injustice. Like why are they getting an easy ride? I had to follow the hard rules. Now, there are two rational responses to this scenario. When you are faced in a situation where you have to follow rules and someone else has more freedom, you have two possible rational answers. One is, I want to be that free too.  Guess which one the banks are going for? They're faced with this fundamental situation of unfairness. This Bitcoin thing isn't playing by the rules. It can't be made to play by the rules. And if you kind of somewhat make it so that it has to play by the rules, we'll just invent another one that doesn't. We'll probably just call it Bitcoin for easiness. And then Bitcoin once again, won't be playing by the rules. It'll be a slightly different Bitcoin, more stealthy, more anonymous, more evasive. Maybe in the end, the only people who can actually use cryptocurrency, the only people who end up having freedom are the criminals, the poor criminals, of course. Because the rich criminals have always had freedom. They don't need cryptocurrency to achieve that. They have Swiss bankers and lawyers. So they can buy freedom. Freedom is something you can buy. But for poor people, they're gonna end up using cryptocurrency. Even if you ban the entire middle class from using it, more and more of them are falling out of the middle class into the clutches of these freedom-making technologies, which is really frustrating for the bankers. So in the position of they don't have to play by the rules, instead of saying we shouldn't play by the rules either, or at least you should relax the rules, or at least we should try and test if these rules are working the way we expect them to work, instead they say make them stop. And then they keep saying make them stop, even though they see that for years and years, decade now, they're not stopping. And we're not stopping. We're gonna continue because there are billions of people who need this. There are billions of people who don't have access to the nice gold cage because they're on the outside. They will never be on the inside.  Because they fell outside of the golden cage, and they will continue to be outside. In fact, the astonishing thing is that more than 40 years into the development of the internet, and certainly 25 years into the robust development of the commercial internet, banking has refused to change. And if anything is getting more exclusive, more unequal, and kicking more and more people outside of the golden cage. And now they're beginning to realize the cage is getting smaller. You know those horror movies where there's people running around some rooms and they go into a room and they press on one of the tiles and suddenly the walls start closing in? They're like, oh shit, start running to find the door? Those kinds of movies, I'm sure you've seen. Indiana Jones was one of those, but there's been others too. It's a great phenomenon. It explains the human psyche so well. You know, it triggers that claustrophobic sense. Well, right now, bankers are feeling that. Because the golden cage keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller, right? And if they keep banking fewer and fewer people and playing with less and less of the world's wealth, concentrated in fewer hands, they become more and more fragile. The economic system they're presiding on, the pyramid they're standing on top of, has cracks in the foundation. And every now and then it starts shaking like that Indiana Jones movie. And they're like, I feel like I'm the king of the world, but not for much longer.  And is that a guillotine they're building? That looks like a guillotine. I don't like that at all. I'm going to get a nice gated community somewhere in the Alps with a vault underneath where I can hide all of my wealth. That's the world we now live in. We're beginning to go into this stage where we're going to have people getting behind higher and higher and higher walls and smaller and smaller and smaller compounds to escape the fate of everybody who's outside the golden cage. Well, I have news for you. It's really nice out here. You should try it. Outside the golden cage, we have freedom. We have sovereignty. We have monetary independence. We have control of our own money. We have monetary policies that we can choose. Some of us choose to use deflationary money that retains its value. Others can choose other systems. We're building new cool things. We're building toys and smart contracts. We're building games. We're tokenizing everything just for the sake of it. A lot of it is scams. There's a lot of weird and criminal people in this space out here, but at least none of them are criminal bankers. They're all inside that golden cage, and they can't come and play with us because they built a cage, they're locked in, and it's getting smaller. And all I have to say to you is it's lovely out here. Come and join me outside the cage and let them regret the decision of becoming the law enforcement arm of corrupt governments, the military enforcement arm of even bigger corrupt governments, and building this cage to increase their profit, which they are now trapped in. We're outside and we are free. Thank you.


One of the reasons why a to-do list doesn't work for a lot of people is because it's visually overwhelming. Maybe you don't realize this, but when you have a bunch of tasks listed all in one piece of paper or one document or one listing, your brain kind of goes on overload a little bit. And so it at the very least slows you down from making better decisions. You can eventually, but you kind of have to fight your way through all the visual complexity. So what I recommend is creating a slim list, a slim list, a list that only has three items on that listing that are the most important items for today. And then the rest of that document is completely blank so that you can have visual simplicity which helps your brain to then focus on that one, those two or three. Your slim list could be literally just one item if you really just want to focus on that today. So I want to give that a try and let me actually talk you through a little bit about creating a slim list. So what you're going to need is you're going to actually need two separate documents or if you want to do this on paper, two separate pieces of paper. When I say document, I mean you can just go to Google Docs and create a new document. And it's all free Google Docs, I love that tool, I use it all the time. So create two separate documents, one of them title your to-do list and the other one title your slim list. On your to-do list, I encourage you to write down everything that you feel like you need to get done. Anything that's kind of bugging at your attention, anything that's an open loop that needs to be completed, anything that ideas that you would love to do when you have time, write it all down so that you don't have to keep it in this head of yours.  When you use your brain to try to remember things, you are using energy that could otherwise be used for higher level thinking like improvisation, creativity, relating, pattern recognition, things that your human brain does far better than a computer does or even a piece of paper. The technology of a piece of paper or a document is to remember items. So let the document, let the piece of paper do that. Don't use your brain to do that. So on one document, call the to-do list, you write down everything that you might want to do, that's what people usually use as a to-do list.  Then the other document is your slim list, which is currently blank. Now I want you to ask yourself, when you look at your to-do list, ask this question, if I only got three of these things done today, could only do three of these, all these items on my to-do list, which of those three must it be? Transfer those three items to your slim list. Write them down again on the slim list. And your slim list has nothing on the entire document except for those three items. All right?  And keep referring back to it so that you can at least give your attention to energy to those items so that you can, if you're not doing it, at the very least, your subconscious mind is working on the solutions to those three items, okay? And you will find yourself with a slim list being so much more focused, productive, maybe even creative than you are with the complexity and the visual overwhelm of a to-do list. Give it a try, let me know how it feels. Now, one of the issues that sometimes comes up is, what if you find yourself writing the same items again and again on your slim list, day after day after day? Yesterday you wrote three items down, maybe you crossed off one of them on your slim list. But today, those two of those three items are still there, and then you still want to focus on them? You still don't get them done, the next day, et cetera. So if it comes to the third day and you still have that same item, one, two, or three of the same items on your slim list, here's what you need to do, a couple of ideas for you. One, you need to break down that overwhelming, that difficult item into more doable steps so that, okay, let's say one item might be something like Climb Mount Everest, right, on that list. Obviously, you can't get that done today. Remember, I said, if you could get three things done today, what would those three things be? Climb Mount Everest, or whatever the analogy is to your life and to your business, is way too big to do in one day or even one month. But a doable step could be research mountain climbing classes, okay? That's very doable. Research mountain climbing classes. And so that would be the item on your slim list, not Climb Mount Everest. Climb Mount Everest would go on your to-do list. And you see a to-do list item, you say, okay, that I want to put on my slim list, but I know that's going to be too overwhelming, even if it was just that one item. So let me break that down into something that's really doable. What is the next super doable step that I can then put on my slim list?  You'll feel good, you'll build your confidence over time by using your slim list and become more and more empowered to do things that are less originally less doable for you, but now you feel the confidence to be able to do that even more. The second strategy for taking care of something that keeps showing up on your slim list is, you know what? Eliminate it. All of us tend to have too many wishes as if we had 100 lifetimes in this one lifetime to do it. So you may just need to eliminate something if you're tired of looking at it. I encourage you to eliminate it. I'll tell you this, everything is optional. Everything is optional, except in my opinion, your connection to your divine source. It's the only thing that's not optional, but everything else is optional.  Accept your connection to your divine source. That, that is the most important thing, right? All right, and then the third strategy for taking care of something that keeps showing up is to delegate it. Why do you have to do it? So if you can't bear to, if you don't know how to break it down, maybe that's already most broken down into a doable step. If you can't bear to eliminate it, then you delegate it. Give it to somebody else to do. You don't have to be the one that does everything or hire that out for someone else to do. So I hope that this has been beneficial. You may need to watch this video again to get all the ideas, but I encourage you to start using a slim list as soon as possible and let me know how it goes for you. Be well.


I think we can get started. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. So I'm from Australia. It's such a long way to come here. So this is my first talk in such a conversation. So the first thing I would send for Vlog, and send for Red Hat for bringing here. So over the next 30 minutes, you're going to hear about something that will change the way you are doing package updates in Fedora. So don't be scared. We are not going to make your life harder. So my name is Mike Jia, but don't get confused. I think it's showing my Chinese full name on Vlog somewhere. So if you want to reach me, you can reach me by this email. So I'm working in factory 2.0 team at Red Hat, and I used to be a bigger developer, and I'm also present developer. All right, so let's move on next. All right, so have you ever noticed the automated test results in BODY before? So if some of you have been to items talk about, I think it's working with automated test systems. So I think you would have already got some idea how this automated testing system work. So I think the Fedora QA has done a great job running a lot of automated tests when you file a new update in BODY. So this is a screenshot of the automated test tab on the web UI in BODY where it shows all the test results from ResultDB. So as shown in this picture, it just has results of a package update for Static State. So how many of you have seen the test results in ResultDB before? Okay, great. So I think most of you know how ResultDB works and works on what ResultDB is, right? But I think it would be good just to refresh your memory. You know, ResultDB is a simple service for recording the automated test results generated by many different testing systems. So when we are talking about testing systems, we are talking about TaskTron, Open QA or CI Pipeline and many other similar testing systems in Fedora. So as you can see, we have got many test results here passing which is cool, right? But we also have two field test results here. So do we actually really care about these fielding test results? I think the answer is we do need to care, right? So what can we do with these fielding test results? Can we use them to help us enforce our package update quality? So let's find out. So today I'm going to introduce two new services we are working on. The first one is called GreenWave. The other one is called WeaverDB. So what GreenWave is, GreenWave originally is known as policy engine in Fedora. So it's recently renamed to GreenWave because we want to make it clear that GreenWave is not driving any of the processes and it's not storing and applying any arbitrary policies about anything. So the fact is GreenWave is a service just for making business decisions or answering yes or no questions. It's about other facts, such as RPMs, modules, containers. So it can be used at 13 getting points in our release pipeline. So when we say getting points, we're talking about body of internal tubes so the decision is actually based on test results in ResultsDB according to some policies. So these policies are just about what checks need to pass before an other fact is considered as good enough. So why do we need GreenWave? What problems can GreenWave have us to solve in body? So as you right now we have identified two problems in body. The first one is we don't enforce any checks across all the packages in bodies. So what that means, if you want, you can release your package update regardless of any field test results. So however, if there's a test field which could be a sign that your package update is broken and you could end up breaking other people's packages which is not what you're expecting. So to solve this problem, we as federal community want to enforce certain checks across all the distributions. So we want to get package updates based on the test results so when an update is going to be released in body. So the goal here is just to prevent the broken changes that would affect other packages as well as improve package quality. So what checks do we want to enforce? So here's just three big checks we really want to enforce right now. So this dot API check, this dot APM depth link, these dots are great tasks. Basically, task problem is running these three checks for most of package updates because I think just Pingu has reached the one issue for Greenway a couple of days ago. We just realized that actually this API check is, I think it's only applied on critical parts packages, right? No, it's restricted for the moment but there is a blacklist of packages that are not allowed to be applied. The next one, I think the upgrade part has some issues with, I think... It's on your run when package is pushing. It's pushing to this thing. Right, right, right. So depending on the gating point on the one issue of these three can be actually applied. Right, right. So basically we want to enforce these checks for all the packages. Yeah, question? One of the things that allows people to accept such enforcement is the ability to then affect the results. For each of these three, can the packageer affect whether they are how, maybe I check runs against the package, how are they definitely affected and how are they impacted against the package? I can answer that one if you want to. Yeah, yeah, that would be good. The basic concerns, you know they cannot because these are not packaging or functionality issues, tests. They are policy decisions. So if you want to... The API checks here is to prevent someone from breaking the API on a stable database and that's something which Fedora by-policy does not want to support. So if there is a bug in the API check the next service that Matt is going to introduce allows you to wait that's constrained. But it's a policy decision and that will have to be a relinch action to actually lift that specific update. And something for a great pass, you need to keep the great pass always compatible between Fedora and Rappas 1, Rappas 2. That's a policy decision. As a packageer, you can influence that by not creating a bigger update for Fedora minus 2 versus Fedora high. So you can go and fix your package. What about the arch in depth? Doesn't that want to let you know... Yeah, it's the same thing. If you get a failure, fix the package. Fix the package first, yeah. And a great part of it means NVR or... It's NVR between Fedora, say 24-25, 26 or high. I'm glad you have something like regression from Fedora 97. 6 in Fedora 97, like they did check that they were in the basic set for the packages. Is this a... recommendation for new upgrade or new plan to cover it? I know they do have a system upgrade in NVR. Can you talk about the package version? It is. I mean, it's less... It's arguably less imperative than it was before, but I think it's still important. What it's trying to prevent is having a work-in earlier release because then at upgrade, you end up not... So what that is looking for is to make sure that if you were to upgrade from 26 to 27, that there are no newer 26 that are on 27, that there are at least the NVR minus the Vistag. Those are fairly steeple. That's what I recall. Because I mean, it's still important. It's virtually not as important. One question? And for each of the checks that you're enforcing, am I, as a package, able to run each of these checks against my package during development and packaging without going through results to be avoided so that I can actively fix the problem? I think you have to guess with some difficulty, right? You need to document those steps. What moves the idea? Someone is telling me what to do, but it's really helpful. To be honest, we've been running these for four years now and we're the first person to ask. Yeah. So now they're going to be forced. That's good. And this is part of the ingredient for the checks. Years ago. All right. Sure. I understand. The tests are used just for compose acceptance testing. So it's not really focusing on some package, but more or less for whole compose. That's true or not? I think that's not true. It's just the test running for each package update. Yeah, but it will be updated in an update system or it use all the version and just use this one build inside some stable system. I think in body for each package update, there's a high list of builds, right? So I think basically touch on just running some types on against these builds. So that's what the test result is. In body it's actually just something I'm done. I just wanted to clarify my answer to this before. Sure. The output comes out as yes to build your package but it may not necessarily you may not necessarily cause it but I'm very much assuming that if your package is involved in a dependency problem that needs to be sorted out and there's no good way that I know of to figure out automatically cause it the easiest thing to do is just build for kind of building that. So some of those yes can run them but when you start bringing into the repo level checks that there's a certain amount of where you run them when you run them that is in here. It's a general principle that we should apply when we try to enforce checks and get test gating and so on to have them be reproducible by definition. I mean in general I agree with you and that works. Anyway I want to go back to my talk anyway so you guys can discuss later. Alright so where are we okay so the reason we want to impose these checks we think these checks are extremely important by the distribution so these failures on the package update I would say we almost certainly break applications or libraries that depend on this up package update. I think this failure we think this failure should be inspected carefully by the owner of AutoFeeder QA. Having these checks could help us find the problem earlier in our release pipeline so in great way these checks could be expressed as a list of rules in a policy for different products. So the second problem is actually body has a feature to allow packages to specify actual required checks but you know people are not quite aware of I don't think anyone use it because it's a manual process you know it's not big fun the reason is you have to specify your extra checks in already you know package update so Grand Wave can automate this process by allowing packages to define policies what extra checks need to pass before package update is considered as good so as a consequence Grand Wave will automatically apply those policies when making decisions so why do we need a new service why not just define policies in body itself body sounds like a perfect place for defining policies it's already a getting system that packages are used to know so the reason is body is not the only place we want to introduce getting based on the test results we want to reuse the same logic to perform getting as much as possible in other getting points so other getting points don't need to really want the well so this will make our life easier to maintain this such logic in one place rather than many places so we think that's why it doesn't make sense to put Grand Wave into a micro service along with other micro services we have developed in factory 2 product so in terms of the fielding test results so what happens when a test goes bad so what happens when a machine is wrong so if a test fail it could be because of infrastructure problems or other known issues so as a package you may want to move it to move your package update forward so since the results db are available and cannot be changed by humans so we just need a new service which is weaver db to allow humans to overwrite the test results so in a short summary weaver db is just a micro service for storing weavers against the test results in result db so generalize the existing weaving function 90 that we have in some of the testing tools like rpm grill so just as the same as result db weaver db is a central place for storing all the weavers alright so put out all these 3 services together so when a package update is going to be let's say pushed to stable in body so body will ask Grooming to make a decision whether the package update is okay to go and then Grooming will query both results db and weaver db and look at the results and weavers together to make the decisions so Yang has given a great talk about fresh maker but I just want how many of you have been to Yang's talk I think most of you okay that's good but it's just too refreshing of memory so it's just a service for automatically rebuilding other facts when their dependencies get updated so it can for example it can KBL container fresh when rpms are released to stable so another example when you update the spike fare in your rpms package fresh maker will automatically trigger the rebuilds of all the modules and containers that contain that rpms package so it will save you a lot of time and effort to rebuild all of the things by yourself so which is really nice so but at the moment fresh maker is unconditionally trigger the rebuilds all the time so but in some situations the rebuilds are not necessarily needed right so for example if an underlying artifact is released but didn't pass certain checks which may be ascended that the underlying artifact is somehow broken right so fresh maker should not trigger the rebuilds of all the upstream artifacts instead it should wait until the underlying artifact got fixed first so we think to make fresh maker more efficient as well as enforce quality building can be used here to get the rebuilds so based on the test results to decide when to rebuild how much to rebuild the next topic is going to be hard because I'm going to talk about the implementation details and so basically just about talk about how growing works under the code and where are we today with the current implementation so I say growing and where are we implemented by Flask you know so how many of you know Flask wow that's great so Flask is just you know it's a micro framework for peasants it's well documented and easy to code so first let's talk about how to define a growing policy because it plays such an important role in growing a policy is just a place where we packages could specify extra text so each policy can have ID product version decision counter rules so ID is just no more unique identifier product version just pdc as in this code yeah right it's a pdc identifier such as Fedora26, Fedora-27 decision context is a label named through coordination between policy author and consuming tools so you know a list of rules just about what types are required to be passing so with the current implementation policies are expressed in YAML configuration fails with the application but this may most likely change in the future because automatically we want the policies enforced by growing to be self-service so you know people can just come about and define a policy for themselves so let's imagine that we're going to push up package update to stable for jibs in body and we have got one filling test result in result db which is required by the policy I mentioned before if we ask Greenway to make a decision it's going to tell us the policy is not satisfied yet it will say which test is failed because we have this .api attack failed so if you think the filling test is positive you can create a wayward by calling wayward db api but the things in the policy request you need result ID and product weren't a good reason so other people can know who and why this filling test result was waived so having said that we're not explaining people to call this api directly so we picture that people will be able to waive the filling test result from the body by bi but this is still kind of we are currently working on yep yep unfortunately we don't have that but we are considering this right so we we go in I think we we're talking about that we're going to introduce a auto waiving series or something like that but yeah yeah right yeah yeah right cool no worries so this is just my last slide so next step just body integration I think we have almost completed and you know we have been putting a lot of effort so thank you for body team so I said it's quite exciting to say that because it has been deployed since last Friday but I think we just have some small issues you know before turning on but you will say production management and the next one is message bus driven so basically we would like to use find a message to automatically drive all the process and lastly we want to allow packages to define a policy for each package so okay I think that's really want to represent today so if you want to get involved and if you want to contribute here are the links welcome to any page and thank you question have you considered putting the policy in the package itself is that something worth talking about together later I'm wondering can you make sense to allow per package policies in a way that we are pushing on one side to test in this case which are entirely in the hand of the package which test on being run the controllable checks being made by Task Control then I wonder what the package needs to control are the tests that you already have control over and what the distro wants to control are what the distro already has control over which is greenway and what we do so we may be able to just supervise things here by just saying that greenway and package level decisions which are controlled by in-front but basically based on decision with distro and everything with distro and everything which is package level is based on the test which are present in this case that does imply that the state CIPaP plan is open to more than just this set of packages that you described earlier we were talking about this in terms of distro level checks because that's what is in 4D right now but greenway is not limited to that it can gain on anything that's available in a way to be very end result to be which makes it like to do test at also a more granular level and gain on those so it doesn't have to just be a test that are defined by I mean a package you could say I want to make sure that this command returns the right thing and that defines where I'm indeed on that that's what the CIPaP plan is allowing to do test time is easy but you see at CIPaP time so that means that the CIPaP plan may use after we package all of it I think we can discuss this later right so sorry about that