►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
All
right,
so
I
think
I
got
item
number
one.
It's
too
bad
philippe
didn't.
I
wasn't
able
to
make
it
today
so
I'll
I'll
do
my
best,
my
best
channeling
of
philippe
and
probably
do
a
poor
job
of
it.
So
philippe
has
been
as
part
of
the
demo
that
philippe
and
for
the
contribute
conference
that
philippe
and
nico
one
of
our
top
one
of
our
very
prolific
users,
are
working
on
he's
using
cns
in
web.
He
tried
to
use
cns
and
waff
and
other
things
and
has
some
good
feedback.
A
So
the
first
one
kind
of
in
this
wasn't
really
intended
as
dog
fooding,
but
we
didn't
learn.
A
lot
from
it
was
cns
is
built
upon
cicd
based,
managed
apps,
which
are
still
considered
alpha.
Do
we
know
when
they'll
be
considered
more
than
alpha?
Does
that
align
with
cns
being
more
than
alpha?
So
I'm
not
saying
we
made
a
poor
decision
in
the
past.
It's
just
a
statement
where
we're
at
currently
so
sam.
You
have
some
thoughts
on
that.
B
It's
unlikely
that
we're
going
to
have
any
bandwidth
whatsoever
to
contribute
to
moving
that
out
of
alpha
anytime
in
the
near
future.
I
suppose,
if
it's
still
in
alpha
in
like
2021,
then
at
that
point
we
might
open
the
discussion
to
see
if
we
do
something
about
it,
but
otherwise
I
think
we're
just
going
to
have
to
leave
it
as
it
is,
and
either
wait
for
the
configure
team
to
move
it
out
out
of
alpha,
or
you
know
just
note
that
hey
as
part
of
this
you're
going
to
be
using
an
alpha
pizza
functionality.
C
Arthur
has
a
good
relationship
with
that
with
that
team
jennifer,
belize,
arthur.
I
see
you
writing
there.
D
As
far
as
I
know,
the
work
on
github
mentioned
app
is
part
right
now,
and
there
is
a
chance
there
will
be
a
shift
in
direction
completely
with
the
agent.
So
I
and
yeah
as
some
mentioned,
they're
dependent
on
them.
There
is
not
much
we
can
do,
and
we
just
need
to
wait
for
the
decision
on
that,
because
it's
ultimately
not
in
our
responsibility
to
manage
this
sort
of
thing.
A
D
Okay,
yeah,
I
would
imagine
so
it's
similar
like
we
are
not
alone
up
there.
Monitoring
stuff
is
also
dependent
on
the
same
thing
and
they
do
exactly
the
same
thing.
The
one
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
like
monitor
team
does
a
bit
better
than
us.
They
don't
treat
the
whole
integration
part
as
a
product
itself.
They
like
introduce
more
features
and
trade
and
gma
pod
as
just
a
prerequisite
for
their
features.
D
If
it
makes
sense,
I
think
it
will
be
good
for
us
to
shift,
and
I
think
we
are
shifting
already
towards
this,
with
various
dashboards
and
alerts
and
other
features
that
we
are
adding
on
top
of
the
serum,
because,
from
my
perspective,
psyllium
installation
is
a
low
value
feature
itself
like
under
the
hood.
They
essentially
executing
a
single
helm
command.
C
If,
if
monitor
uses,
considers
is
a
prerequisite,
doesn't
mean
that,
doesn't
it
mean
that
they
depend
on
it
as
well?.
D
Again,
the
monitor
is
really
flexible,
like
all
the
features
require
parameters
and
elastic
stack,
but
parameters
can
be
installed
through
the
gma
one
parameters
can
be
installed
for
the
gma
tool.
Parameters
can
be
installed
manually
and
in
all
three
cases,
all
the
monitoring
features
will
be
working.
D
I
think
that
mindset
is
really
important
for
us
to
adapt
because
saying
that
gma
is
the
heart
like
correct
requirement,
for
our
features
is
kind
of
dead
end,
because
we
essentially
can't
move
forward
gma
by
ourselves.
So
I
think
adaption.
What
this
monitor
is
doing
like
this
mindset
is
really
important
for
us.
C
B
Yeah,
so
that
documentation
effort
I
mean
you
know
that
was
one
of
the
items
was
to
make
our
products
more
independent
from
that,
so
that
we
could
do
that
very
thing,
so
we're
flexible
right
so
that
we
could
at
least
not
require
them
to
use
an
alpha
feature
for
their
base
code
management
project,
and
it
turns
out
that
that's
possible.
We
just
need
to
improve
our
documentation
on
how
to
do
all
of
that.
So
that's
what
felice
has
been
working
on.
I
think
he
just
recently
finished
it.
B
I
still
need
to
go
through
and
read
that
new
documentation
in
depth,
but
we're
getting
better.
It.
A
A
You
know
arthur
and
zamir
thanks
again
for
your
help
with
the
demo
project
and
leading
that
in
the
right
direction,
and
I
think
it
was
partially
that
cns
is
is,
you
know,
is
the
alpha
version
of
managed,
apps
and
waff
is
the
older
stuff
so
xamarin?
I
know
you
meant
well
you
mentioned
here.
Maybe
we
need
to
just
document
this,
perhaps
so,
but
but
but
sorry
I
put
the
question
out
there
so
sam
you're
concerned
about
this.
You
want
to
verbalize
your
thoughts.
They
wrote
here.
B
B
You
just
need
to
follow
some
specific
instructions
to
set
it
up
to
set
something
both
up
in
any
case
like
we're,
not
planning
to
either
deprecate
waff
or
integrate
that
functionality
into
container
network
security.
Anytime
soon
again,
with
our
team
size,
we
have
pretty
limited
bandwidth,
and
so
you
know
that
would
probably
consume
our
entire
team
for
the
rest
of
the
year.
B
So
you
know
that's
really
a
best
case
scenario,
a
2021
item.
So
if,
if
there
are
major
limitations
that
we're
not
able
to
address
in
documentation,
then
we
would
just
note
it
as
a
limitation
and
and
leave
it
there.
A
Zamir
to
your
point,
you
think
it's
we
need
to
document
how
to
do
it.
It's
not
that
they're
they're
incompatible,
it's
that
it's
really
hard
to
make
them
compatible,
because
we
don't
have
the
right
documentation.
So
we
need
to
update
the
documentation.
I
think
it's
where
you
landed.
Did
I
get
that
right.
E
A
And
I
did
assign
that
to
philippe,
so
you
can
take
a
look
at
updating
the
document
arthur.
You
have
a
comment.
D
Yeah,
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
it's
pretty
much
on
our
end
that
we
failed
that,
because
I
pretty
sure
that
the
situation
was
mentioned
several
times
and
there
are
two
issues
related
to
that
already
opened
in
the
ish
tracking
one
and
the
configuring
one
under
us
for
the
quest
applications
that
was
fixed.
But
we
just
didn't
work
on
that,
and
so
maybe
we
can
improve
on
process
up
there.
D
But
my
ultimate
impression
was
that
we
just
deprived
like
a
lot
of
work
on
love
for
a
while,
even
if
like,
if
you
go
and
check
them
out,
it's
so
a
really
small
piece
of
work.
We
could
definitely
do
it
ourselves,
but
it
was
never
scheduled.
So
maybe,
while
waffle
is
not
perfect,
maybe
still
continue
kind
of
supporting
at
least
somehow
it
will
be
an
option.
C
We
wouldn't
pick
up
this
iteration
because
we
we've
already
committed
to
a
significant
challenge,
but
I
wouldn't
mind
having
a
look
after
we
that
that,
if
there's
a
good
balance
of
you
know
small
effort
and
and
good
value
there
and
in
previous
documentation
or
of
addressing
that
issue,
maybe
we
can
have
a
look
at
it,
sam,
but
but
wayne
I
think
the
net
is
that
it.
It
is
known
right
and
he
was
known.
A
It
wasn't
known
to
philippe,
so
he
he
got
tripped
up
by
it
or
or
maybe
it
wasn't,
he
forgot
about
it,
but
you
know
we
all
work
on
many,
many
things
so
that
that
happens.
So
a
combination
of
looking
at
the
things
that
would
make
it
easier
and
updating
the
documentation,
the
combination
that
would
make
that
better,
perhaps
arthur,
if
you
could
add
the
links
you
know
offline
to
the
issues
that
or
the
mr
well
the
issues
that
you
mentioned
just
so
we
can
keep
track
of
them.
That'd
be
great.
A
So
last
one
and
I
kind
of
raised
my
eye,
my
eyebrow,
with
this
one.
Some
cloud
providers
provide
waft
and
cns
and
when
philippe,
in
fact,
if
a
customer
uses
rcns
with
google's
gcp,
the
customer
loses
the
app
the
ability
to
get
support
from
google
on
the
network,
layer
and
he's
concerned.
Also,
maybe
a
similar
pattern
with
aws
and
azure.
A
Should
this
impact
your
plans
in
a
pal
and
sam?
You
had
some
thoughts
on
this.
B
Yeah,
so
my
thought
is
that
it
seems
a
little
bit
odd
to
me
that
they
would
do
that.
I
I
don't
like.
I
can't
speak
a
hundred
percent
authoritatively
here.
I
I
don't
know
for
certain,
but
it
does
look
like
google
supports
use
of
kubernetes
network
policies
and
philia
network
policies
are
just
an
extension
of
that.
So
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
we're
doing
or
where
the
line
is
where
we
would
break
that
support
boundary,
but
it's
probably
worth
getting
some
more
information
there.
You
know
just
to
double
check
that
we
are.
A
Yeah,
where
did
you
get
that
wing?
I'm
I'm
channeling
philippe
here,
so
this
was
so
so
maybe
another
thing
on
all
these
is
we're
operating
a
little
bit
without
you
know
being
able
to
get
more
asked
clarifying
questions.
So
maybe
maybe
then,
if
somebody
wants
to
take
this
an
action
item,
sam
or
thiago
is,
is
you
have
a
session
with
philippe
in
real
time
to
kind
of
talk
through
these
in
more
detail?
A
I
think
we've
got
a
good
discussion
so
far,
but
but
I
think
I
think
we
need
to
hear
you
know
directly
from
philippe
on
these
and
arthur
you.
You
had
some
thoughts
on
this
as
well.
I
see
in
the
notes.
D
Yeah,
I
think
this
concern
is
valid,
but
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that.
Essentially,
some
providers
have
underworking
network
policy
implementation,
notably
gt
and
azure,
and
they
essentially
like
when
we
started
working.
They
had
some
baseline
support
for
calico,
but
I
checked
the
docks
for
posts.
They
essentially
wrote
their
own
implementation
that
we
obviously
can't
integrate
with.
We
can't
do
things
like
monitoring.
We
can't
do
alerts
so
essentially
we
can
only
provide
baseline
features
for
those
network
policy
provider
implementation.
D
It's
also
valid
comment,
but
I
I
not
sure
if
it's
actually
ultimately
valid
because
in
case
of
like
google
cloud,
that
what
our
company
is
using
for
kubernetes
selim
is
actually
only
just
overweight
network
of
kubernetes
and
it
uses
native
routing
and
it
doesn't
even
do
ap
management.
So
essentially
from
the
perspective
of
google
admins,
it
will
be
google's
network
and
they
would
need
to
chase
on
the
support
level
any
network
issues
anyway.
D
Again,
it's
it's
a
gray
area,
because
kubernetes
essentially
uses
several
way
like
when
you
work
with
kubernetes.
You
will
be
thinking
about
overlay
network,
but
in
most
cases.
Obviously,
overall
network
is
not
self-contained
thing.
It
needs
a
host
network
and
yeah.
I
think
they
still
should
be
support
and
at
the
end
of
our
sre
team
bond
support
we
can
like
they
can
support
by
by
support
from
psyllium
at
the
end
of
the
day
right
and
they
provide
that
commercial
option.
D
So
I
definitely
think
there
are
options.
Concern
is
valid,
but
from
perspective
for
our
team,
the
choice
that
we
made
with
open
source
product
is
the
better
one
than
relying
on
supporting
multiple
vendor
locked
solutions.
C
Yeah
we'll
go
from
there
and
and
what
arthur
is
saying
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
me.
So
so
it's
still
a
valid
concern
and
we
should
have
a
position
on
on
on
its
sam.
Perhaps
where
you
know
we
will
he's
here's
what
you
need
to
do
if
you
want
to
be
supported.
B
C
I'm
thinking
an
issue
for
that
would
be
good,
because
then
we
can
collect
the
information
from
philippe
and
use
the
issue
to
discuss.
Okay.
What
do
what
do
we
want
to
do?
What's
our
position,
and
is
it
just
some
documentation?
Do
we
need
to
do
some
work?
Do
we
need
to
talk
to
to
the
cloud
providers
figure
out
I'll
write
the
issue
yeah?
I
agree.
D
I
think
to
expand
on
some
of
the
points
I
mentioned
before.
I
think
we
need
the
actual
bulk
of
the
product
that
you
can
see
the
product
again.
Installing
network
policy
provider
is
not
a
product
right
by
itself,
but
once
let's
say
we
have
a
working
alerts
and
monitoring
and
other
pieces
of
work
that
we
plan
to
do
on
top
of
psyllium.
We
can
go
back
and
say
hey
what
parts
we
actually
can
support
one
specific
cloud
you
know.
Maybe
we
will
introduce
the
support
and
just
block
out
the
rest
of
the
features.
D
So
user
will
be
encouraged
to
kind
of
consider
psyllium
as
an
option,
because
they're
essentially
missing
out
on
features
that
they
might
be
interested
in,
but
I
think,
because
salem
gives
us
way
more
than
any
vendor
cloud
provider.
We
should
use
it
as
baseline
for
now
and
similar
to
any
other
product.
Like
let's
say
valve
can
be
installed
for
the
google
cloud.
There
is
a
paid
option
for
that.
There
is
spread
product
similar
with
aws.
D
D
But
if
you
have
more
features
like
providing
better
policies
for
valve
or
additional
monitoring,
analytical
services
or
even
intelligent
response
options,
user
will
definitely
will
consider
switching
out
of
the
call
provide
the
limited
options
earlier.
We
ready
to
move
on.
A
So
sure
I
think
1b
so
completely,
switching
gears
from
the
feedback
from
philippe
on
the
demo
for
contribute
so
noticed,
is
actually
early
monday
morning.
That
on
sometimes
sunday
is
that
the
the
team
working
on
making
it
so
that
we
can
easily
give
customers
access
to
logs
from
container
security
they're
ready
for
us,
which
is
awesome.
A
So
should
we
add
so
my
question
is:
should
we
add
to
the
road
map
the
ability
to
quickly
jump
over
to
the
to
see
those
locks
and
sam?
You
have
some
initial
thoughts
on
that.
B
Yeah,
so
I
can
work
with
kyle
to
start
thinking
about
the
design.
For
that
you
know
if
we
were
to
rewind
several
months.
This
was
like
a
really
high
priority
item
at
this
point.
You
know
a
there's
a
way
to
see
it
now
in
the
gitlab
ui,
which
first
of
all,
that's
phenomenal.
I'm
super
excited
that
they
got
that
done
and
do
we
have
the
export
to
sim
functionality
as
well.
B
A
Yeah,
so
perhaps
you
start
with
documentation
just
telling
in
the
container
security
documentation
tell
people
how
to
go
over
the
logs.
That's
a
good
first
step,
perhaps
and
arthur
you.
You
sent
here
cross-linking
directly
to
the
name
space
that
would
have
to
be
selected.
D
A
D
C
The
vulnerability
the
default,
the
default
level
on
the
vulnerability
dashboard
that
always.
D
It
literally
gives
us
no
option
to
integrate
with
this
page.
It
works.
I
I
checked
it
yesterday,
it's
possible
to
check
like
if
you
go
to
democracy
and
monitor
page,
you
can
select
gma
namespace
and
then
check
all
the
logs
that
you
need,
but
that's
great.
The
problem
is
yeah.
You
can't
really
link
to
this
page
other
than
the
base
page
and
then.
C
E
Yeah,
it's
just
that
we
we
have
alerts
in
the
road
map.
I
think
our
alerts
are
going
to
provide
a
lot
in
terms
of
which
logs
which
log
entries
are
going
to
be
something
to
penetration
or
not,
but
this
not
diminishing
the
general
log.
But
I'm
not
sure
at
this
point.
If
it's
a
it's
a
huge
thing
for
us.
B
F
A
Don't
know,
actually
I
haven't
done
the
documentation
change
in
a
while
I'll.
Take
it
all
right:
okay,
cool.
B
Yeah,
please
please
don't
get
me
wrong
on
this
one
I
am.
I
am.
You
know,
heads
over
heels
excited
that
they
got
this
done
for
us
it
just.
I
only
have
two
developers,
so
I'm
you
know
very
protective
of
their
time
and.
A
B
D
A
I
got
a
you
know
in
the
ceo
shadow
program.
I
I
got
a
bunch
of
different,
disconnected
information
that
I
had
before
it
that
then
I
really
was
able
to
put
together
and
understand
the
go
to
market
plan.
When
I
did
the
shadow
program,
so
we
put
things
for
free
aka
in
core
in
the
open
source
portion
of
git
lab,
because
we
want
developers
to
use
it
right
and
we
want
developers
to
love
it
and
that's
the
land
part
of
our
land
and
expand.
I
know
sam.
A
You
know
this
really
well,
but
for
other
folks
that
that's
the
the
land
part
of
the
land
and
expand
go
to
market
strategy
and
because
we
want
developers
to
use
it
for
open
source
projects
and
at
and
where
they
work,
and
they
want
to
so
that
they
really
love
it.
It
does
a
better
job
than
other
things
that
they
have.
A
A
Various
features,
like
I
don't
know,
merge,
request
approvals
I
believe,
is
a
paid
feature
versus
a
free
feature
and
we're
spending
a
lot
of
time,
as
we
should
on
features
that
that
people
will
want
to
pay
for,
and
I'm
not
saying
we
should
change
anything
on
our
current
on
those
features
that
we've
either
built,
nor
on
features
that
we're
planning
to
build
that
we
already
have
in
the
road
map.
What
I'm
thinking
is.
A
Should
we
have
things
to
that
will
go
into
core
that
will
make
it
so
that
develop
it's
easier
for
developers
to
install
and
to
make
it
more
attractive
for
developers
to
want
to
use
our
features.
Examples
might
be
you
know,
one
example
is
to
make
it
easier
to
install
and
straight
forward
to
install,
might
be
example.
Projects-
or
you
know
that
say
you
use
this
and
you
get
a
container
that
already
has
you
know
a
cluster
that
has
you
know
cns
and
waf
and
host
already
there
everything's
already
configured.
A
You
know
how
reasonable
or
feasible
that
is,
I
don't
know
or
another
is
example
policies.
You
know
we
give
developers,
policies
that
so
developers
can
say
my
security
team
is
telling
me
I
don't
have
any
network
policies,
so
at
least
I
have
something
to
start
with
right,
so
examples
policies.
Perhaps
so
it's
an
idea,
I'm
not
sure
it's
a
good
idea,
but
just
when
I
see
everything
in
the
roadmap
being
paid
features-
and
we
don't
have
that
much
usage
yet
it
makes
me
think
that
those
paid
feeders
are
great.
B
Yeah,
so
I
guess
to
talk
to
what
I
wrote
here,
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
because
I
don't
really
see
developers
using
defend
at
all.
I
I
just
don't
see
that
as
a
primary
persona,
for
what
we're
doing
and
like
if
we're
talking
about
going
and
having
all
of
the
developers,
even
look
at
our
own
team
right
like
arthur's
writing
code,
the
mayor's
writing
code
for
git
lab
itself,
but
those
are
not.
The
people
who
are
managing
the
security
of
git
lab
like
arthur,
is
not
managing
network
policy.
B
You
know
neither
of
those
individuals
are
managing
our
web
application
firewall
that
we
currently
have
deployed
in
front
of
gitlab.
You
know
these
are
not
the
people
who
are
responsible
for
those
kinds
of
tasks,
so
I
think
the
primary
persona
for
all
of
defend
is
actually
not
the
developer.
B
It's
not
about
getting
a
whole
lot
of
users
using
it.
We,
in
fact
you
know,
we've
changed
our
metric
to
not
focus
on
users.
Instead,
we're
focusing
on
the
number
of
clusters
where
it's
turned
on
and
deployed,
because
we
don't
ever
anticipate
having
you
know
massive
crowds
of
people
using
this,
but
your
your
point
is
well
taken
that
you
know
we
want
to
make
this
easier
to
use
and
a
little
bit
more
turnkey.
B
I
would
just
recreate
that
to
say
you
know
we
want
it
to
be
easy
for
the
secops
team
to
adopt
and
set
up
almost
all
of
what
we've
done
today
is
available
in
core,
and
our
roadmap
is
focused
very
heavily
on
paid
features.
B
I'm
not
sure
how
much
we
can
push
like.
So
the
big
thing
that
we
introduced
to
help
make
it
easier
were
two
two
sets
of
features
right.
We
introduced
our
controls,
which
was
kind
of
the
point
and
click
button
to
install
waft.
We
were
not
able
to
give
a
point
and
click
for
container
network
policies
or
container
host
security,
because
you
actually
have
to
restart
the
networking
restart
all
of
your
pods
in
the
cluster
and
that's
a
very
disruptive
change
that
we
didn't
want
to
have
that.
B
We
just
appointed
quick
and
somebody,
you
know
suddenly
rebooted
their
production
environment,
so
we're
making
it
as
easy
as
we
can
without
making
it
so
easy
that
you
know
you
click
the
button
and
now
your
entire,
you
know,
cluster
network
gets
restarted
and
you've
lost.
You
know
taking
your
production
environment
down
for
a
number
of
minutes,
but
I
like
the
idea
of
maybe
having
like
a
out
of
the
gate,
template
project
where
you
know
you've
got
something:
that's
you
know,
goes
and
deploys
a
fresh
cluster
and
presets
it
all
up
for
you.
B
We
are
developing
out
of
the
box
policy
sets
today,
in
fact,
that's
already
in
the
works,
but
I
think
on
that
suggestion,
we're
we're
actually
making
really
good
progress.
There.
A
D
Yeah,
I
I
want
to
say
that
I
ultimately
agree
that
our
integrations
are
not
the
most
refined
in
10k
solutions
ever,
but
I
just
want
to
say
that,
as
I
mentioned,
they
provide
really
well
value
from
my
perspective.
At
the
same
time,
they
already
take
a
bit
of
time,
maintaining
all
those
gma
and
cost
application
integrations
and
on
this
basis,
like
improving
further,
is
really
hard.
D
Again,
I
mentioned
underhood
is
essentially
a
single
helm
command
and
the
issue
that,
like
essentially
providing
this
integration,
we
take
a
bit
of
the
burden
of
the
support
right
like
saying
that,
if
you
are
not
able
to
install
users
will
go
to
us
and
naturally
we
can't
really
provide
them
more.
I
think
we
will
benefit
more
from
providing
links
to
the
upstream
documentation.
Serum,
like
installation,
getting
started
guide
for
g
key
is,
I
think,
five
steps.
Each
step
is
just
a
single
command
and
I'm
talking
five
steps
with
verification
like
valve.
D
Documentation
is
really
good
and
it's
just
a
half
a
screen
page.
I
think
we
can't
really
make
a
better
docs
ourselves
and
our
integration
like
again
pushing
this
integration
a
bit
further.
Is
I
I
I
don't
even
have
a
good
suggestion
how
to
do
that
right
now,
like
all
the
problems
philip
had
and
nikko,
I
I
completely
recognized
that,
but
again
what
we
could
do
in
those
situations
is
a
bit
unclear.
D
Situation
was
obviously
unique
because
it's
azure,
but
even
not
considering
that
so
yeah,
I
I
don't
know,
what's
other
what
sam
thought
about
and
not
really
making
it's
a
cornerstone
of
defense
like
providing
essentially
a
wrap
around
already
a
simple
hem
command.
D
I
I
see
some
value
because
it
does
provide
us
some
visibility
on
the
quest
application
pages
for
free
just
because
we
have
those
applications
somewhere,
but
at
the
same
time
I
don't
know
like
if
I
would
would
be
using
ceiling
myself,
I
would
just
install
it
for
the
dogs,
it's
it's
like
really
straightforward
and
it
gets
from
familiarity
with
docs
of
the
such
products
is
always
beneficial.
C
A
For
having
most
of
the
agenda
today,
but
that's.
C
All
good
these,
these
are
all
really
good,
visionary
things,
just
as
as
we
have
our
capacity,
we
are
at
capacity
for
situations,
so
we
won't
do
anything
about
any
of
these
things
for
for
a
good
month,
but
the
good
discussions
to
have
thank
you
for
bringing
them
up
with
that.