►
Description
OpenShift Commons Briefing
ReCommoning OpenSource
Jabe Bloom (Red Hat)
Hosted by Diane Mueller (Red Hat)
2020-05-15
A
Well,
hello,
everybody
and
welcome
again
to
another
openshift
Commons
briefing:
Dianne
Euler
your
host
and
the
person
behind
of
most
of
the
Commons
efforts,
and
today
I'm
really
psyched.
We
have
been
puttering
around
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
best
expose
the
great
minds
that
are
part
of
the
global
transformation
office
and
get
some
of
their
work
around
DevOps
and
Community
Development,
and
you
know
all
kinds
of
things
into
our
slipstream
here
and
today.
I'm
really
happy
to
have
J
Blum
from
the
GGO
office.
I
have
no
idea
what
Jade,
what
your
title
actually
is.
A
A
So
if
you
have
questions,
you
can
ask
them
in
twitch,
if
you're
watching
us
on
Twitch
or
in
the
blue
jeans
chat,
if
you're
watching
us
in
blue
jeans
and
it
will
we'll
wing
it
so
I'm
gonna,
let
jabe
really
introduce
himself
and
then
take
it
away.
For
you
know,
as
long
as
it
takes
to
set
the
stage
for
this.
B
B
I'm
jay
bloom.
I
work
the
gto,
the
global
transformation
office
inside
a
red
hat.
My
official
title
is
senior
director,
I'm
not
sure
exactly
what
that
means
in
relationship
to
the
world,
but
that's
my
title:
I
when
I'm
not
read
hattingh
and
trying
to
help
people
through
transformations
I'm,
getting
a
PhD
at
Carnegie
Mellon,
and
some
of
the
some
of
the
work
that
I'm
going
to
show
you
here
is
is
from
my
PhD,
and
what
I
can't
want
to
explore
is
just
this
idea.
B
What
is
it
Commons
and
then
try
to
understand
how
enterprises
could
think
of
or
engage
in
in
Commons
or
what
I
call
recombinant,
and
so
in
order
to
set
that
up,
we
kind
of
gotta
go
through
some
some
theory
to
set
up
a
place
to
talk
about
it
right.
So
first
thing
is
just
what
is?
What
is
the
comments?
What
do
we
mean
by
a
Commons?
So
Commons
have
kind
of
specific
attributes.
B
First
of
all,
there's
something
like
a
common
resource
pool,
and
that
means
there's
there's
things
that
people
share
and
use
together
and
that
they
get
value
out
of
right.
So
we
kind
of
try
to
not
to
use
the
word
common
to
describe
common
things
but
anyway,
so
a
frequent
example
of
the
Commons
would
be
something
like
a
fishery
or
water
source
or
a
pasture
land
right.
B
So
the
other
thing
to
think
about
really
quickly
is
that
what
Commons
is
essentially
established
because
the
users
are
both
consumers
and
contributors
to
the
long-term
sustainability
of
the
Commons,
so
they
both
everybody
who
is
using
the
Commons,
is
both
consuming
from
it
and
taking
value
from
it,
but
also
contributing
it
to
it
by
not
over
harvesting
it.
So,
in
other
words,
restraint
is
a
form
of
contribution
in
in
these
types
of
Commons.
So
my
my
friend
Maj,
who
is
another
PhD
student,
but
what's
another
page
student
he's
dr.
B
B
If
I
don't
want
you
to
be
in
it,
I
can
ask
you
to
leave
right,
so
my
Commons
kind
of
lives
in
the
space
in
between
those
two
things
and
one
of
the
kind
of
important
things
about
the
idea
of
recombinant
which
we'll
get
to
is
that
Commons
used
to
exist
as
the
it's
kind
of
like
just
commonly
held
land.
In
other
words,
it
wasn't
held
by
the
government.
It
wasn't
held
by
individuals.
It
was
just
anybody
could
use
it
and
that
that
was
a
thing
and
we'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
they're.
B
Not
only
it's
not
only
that
resources
get
consumed
and
over
exploited,
but
also
the
idea
of
a
Commons
is
that
there's
a
set
of
governance,
practices
and
communities
sustained
the
resources
as
they're
used
so
in
this
conception,
there's
an
idea
that
the
Commons
is
a
form
of
commoning.
In
other
words,
there's
an
activity
involved
in
creating
and
sustaining
a
commons.
It's
not
just
a
set
of
resources.
B
Perfect
way
of
calculating
how
to
divide
goods
among
people,
that's
a
global
rationality
right,
so
local
versus
global,
so
that
when
a
Commons
exists
in
is,
is
in
the
intermediary
between
the
values
that
are
produced
by
paying
attention
to
local
concerns
and
the
efficiencies
and
important
rationalities
that
are
represented
by
kind
of
global
rationalities.
So
so,
what's
what's
the
problem
that
we're
gonna
try
to
point
to
here?
We
kind
of
described
the
thing:
is
there
what's
what's
the
problem
with
the
Commons?
B
B
Therefore,
they'll
get
an
advantage,
and
if
they're,
if
everybody
puts
too
many
cows
on
the
pasture
well,
nobody
will
have
cows
and
therefore
nobody
will
get
an
advantage.
So
one
in
this
kind
of
game
theoretic,
one
version
of
it
produces
I,
get
more
cows
than
everybody
else
and
the
other
one
produces.
Nobody
gets
any
more
cows,
but
I'm.
Also,
not
I
don't
lose
in
the
game
of
kind
of
competitive
right,
so
that
causes
what's
called
the
tragedy
Commons.
B
It
causes
this
idea
that
the
Commons
cannot
be
self-sustaining
and
in
the
original
framing
of
this
by
a
man
named
Hardin,
he
was
trying
to
point
out
that
Commons
are
are
essentially
unsustainable,
because
these
two
rationalities
caused
the
collapse,
the
Commons
at
all
times,
and
so
there's
gonna
be
some
interesting
things.
We
need
to
talk
about
about
why
that
is
true
or
false,
but
the
result
of
this
kind
of
thinking
led
to
what
is
called
the
enclosure
movement
in
Europe
and
especially
in
England.
So
the
basic
idea
of
the
enclosure
movement
is
roughly.
B
We
have
a
bunch
of
common
land
that
is
not
being
managed
well
because
of
these
kind
of
cyclical
collapses
of
the
Commons
and
the
theory
becomes
well.
The
reason
why
the
Commons
keeps
on
collapsing
is
because
no
one
is
personally
responsible
for
maintaining
the
Commons,
so
there's
no
either
there's
either
no
government
structure,
that's
governing
land
or
there's
no
individual
who's
personally
responsible
for
the
land,
and
so
what
they
do
is
they
basically
carve
up?
All
of
England
into
little
pieces
there
they
eradicate
the
Commons,
in
other
words
prior
to
the
enclosure
movement.
B
There
was
land
in
England
that
was
commonly
held,
not
governmental,
II,
controlled
and
not
owned
by
individuals.
People
could
hunt
on
it
graze
on
it.
Classic
examples
are
like
sheep
herds
would
would
traverse
them
all
those
things
after
the
enclosure
movement,
every
piece
of
land
in
England
is
either
private
property
or
public
property.
There
is
no
longer
commonly
held
property,
so
this
this
leads
to
what
they,
what
is
called
the
tragedy
of
enclosure.
B
So
the
tragedy
of
enclosure
basically
says
that
the
problem
with
this
is
that
you
either
lose
local
needs,
because
you,
you
enclose
the
the
resource
and
give
it
to
a
government
that
doesn't
care
necessarily
about
the
locality,
local
needs
or
you
destroy
the
global
concerns
by
giving
it
to
a
private
citizen
right.
So
you
have
this.
You
have
a
a
by
removing
the
comments.
You
have
a
tragedy
that
is
there
is
there?
Was
there
things
that
were
valuable
in
the
Commons
that
can
only
be
held
in
common?
B
B
Think
I
think
this
should
ring
true
for
most
people
inside
most
organizations
we
see
a
what
we
call
core
conflict,
the
core
conflict
is
this:
we
see
on
one
side
of
the
organization
a
need
or
drive
for
radical
accelerated
differentiation
of
customer
value.
So
this
is
the
value
system
or
the
economic
drivers
of
part
of
the
organization
are
to
create
new
novel
functions,
features
applications,
business
lines
to
address
expanding
markets,
new
customers
and
customer
needs
right.
So
this
is
one
side
of
the
equation.
B
On
the
other
side
of
the
equation,
we
see
a
lot
of
organizations,
drive
to
centralize
operational
excellence
and
create
efficiencies
right.
So
this
is
your
central
IT
department
in
most
organizations
and
what
we
see
is
we
get
these
kind
of
idea
that
there's
a
bunch
of
business
lines
and
they're,
almost
always
in
conflict
with
a
centralized
IT
organization,
and
this
conflict
is
what
we
kind
of
want
to
play
with
a
little
bit
here.
B
So
we
have
is
a
paradox
and
the
paradox
can
be
roughly
kind
of
structured,
as
one
side
of
the
organization
is
arguing
that
we
have
to
increase
variety
and
the
other.
One
is
arguing
that
we
have
to
decrease
variation
and
these
two
economically,
so
both
of
those
statements
are
about
what
creates
value
for
the
organization.
One
side
of
the
organization
argues
that
increasing
variety,
in
other
words,
producing
things
that
address
new
markets.
New
customer
needs
adds
value
to
the
business,
and
the
other
side
believes
that
decreasing
variety
by
increasing
the
application
of
economics
of
scale.
B
That
is
what
creates
value
for
the
for
the
business,
so
you
can
see
that
this
causes
kind
of
a
direct,
problematic
interaction
right.
So
we
get
is
again.
We
get
this
idea
that
we've
got
business
lines
and
product
lines
and
business
units
with
agile
feature
teams
and
what
they
want
to
be
governed
by
our
concepts
of
autonomy,
agility
and
ownership
like
product
ownership
or
you,
you
write
it,
you
run
it
all
these
kind
of
conceptions
of
an
organization
where
the
the
team's
our
value
is
created
for
these
teams
by
reducing
dependencies.
B
Let's
say
it
that
way:
so
that's
one
side,
the
system,
the
other
side
of
system,
of
course,
is
interested
in
things
like
change,
control,
governance,
risk
and
compliance
approved
reference
architectures.
They
interact
a
lot
with
procurement
to
prevent
people
from
purchasing
non
non-standard
technologies,
they're
very
worried
about
things
like
availability,
reliability,
things
like
this
and
they
are
hyper,
focused
on
kind
of
enforcing
resource
constraints
in
order
to
enable
capacity
planning
right.
B
B
So
what
we
look
at
here,
then,
is
this
idea
of
one
side
wanting
to
deploy
what
we
would
call
local
rationalities
in
order
to
create
context,
specific
responses
to
to
market
stimuli
and
well,
the
focus
is
more
on
what's
effective
and
what
works
and
the
whole
idea
is
to
develop
unique
resources
that
solve
customer
needs
and
expand
markets.
On
the
other
side,
we
have
this
idea
of
global
rationalities,
so
we
want
people
to
leverage
repeatable
processes.
We
want
to
decrease
variation.
We
have
a
hyper
focus
on
efficiency
as
a
source
of
value.
B
A
lot
of
what
we're
doing
is
not
we're
not
working
with
kind
of
unique
rare
resources,
we're
working
with
commodity
and
utility
resources.
Things
like
like
M,
the
cloud
might
come
in
play
here
and
the
whole
idea
of
this
ends
up
being
that
there's
a
difference
between
what
we're
designing
forward
on
one
side.
The
value
that
we're
designing
for
is
a
customer's
experience
and,
on
the
other
side,
we're
designing
to
be
able
to
maintain
a
system
and
lower
the
cost
of
change
of
that
system.
B
This
leads
us
to
some
interesting
questions
about
what
consumption
is
and
these
different
kind
of
areas
when
we
think
about
consumption.
So
again,
the
whole
point
of
a
commons
is
that
there
are
certain
resources
that
are
consumed.
Well,
we.
What
we
see
here
is
that
the
the
organization
that
I've
labeled
here
the
differentiation
part
of
the
organization
relies
on
consumable
publicly
held
resources
in
most
organizations
and
by
publicly
held
I
mean
centrally
governed
right,
because,
on
the
other
side
which
I've
labeled
here
is
scale,
these
people
are
far
responsible
for
governing
the
consumable
publicly-held
resources.
B
So
that's
kind
of
Ben's
up
being
the
application
of
this
paradox
to
IT
organizations.
Today
so
great,
we
have
a
nice
paradox
now.
We
might
actually
make
some
progress
because
paradoxes
help
us
to
think
about
things
new
without
accepting
old
dogmas.
So
is
there
a
way
to
think
about
this
paradox
differently?
Is
there
a
way
of
understanding
how
these
two
governing
rationalities
might
be
might
be
turned
in
from
a
zero-sum
game
to
a
win-win
game?
How
would
we?
B
How
would
we
take
these
two
ideas
about
how
to
govern
an
organization
and
instead
of
having
one
side
always
win,
and
one
side
always
lose,
have
had
a
way
of
thinking
about
this?
Where
both
sides
could
win?
How
would
we
do
that?
What
would
we
look
for?
So?
The
first
thing
to
say
I
think,
is
what
what
do
we
mean
by
consumable
inside
of
an
IT
organization?
B
What
is
consumable
inside
of
an
IT
organization-
and
this
has
to
do
with
this
again-
this
Mis
balance
between
the
reproduction
of
a
resource
and
the
consumption
of
the
resource,
so
it
has
to
do
with
sustainable
creation
of
certain
things
that
are
consumed,
but
specifically
things
that
are
consumed
in
a
subtractive
way.
In
other
words,
if
they're
over
utilized,
the
value
of
them
goes
down
right,
so
I
think
clearly
inside
of
IT
organizations.
B
This
this
is
things
like
network
storage,
computing
databases,
right,
there's,
probably
others,
but
these
are
for
nice,
big
ones,
so
you
can
think
about
a
network.
A
network
is
a
thing
that
is
managed,
there's
a
capacity
to
it.
We
manage
the
capacity
by
a
capacity
planning
if
it
gets
oversaturated.
The
value
of
the
network
to
everybody
attached
to
that
network
goes
down
same
thing,
with
storage,
it's
possible
to
run
the
storage.
Therefore,
you
have
to
plan
for
how
much
storage
you
want.
B
Compute
is
kind
of
a
set
of
resources
that
are
driven
by
certain
other
economics
that
are
shared
in
modern
kind
of
cloud-based
utility
based
compute
clusters,
their
shared
resources,
they're,
not
they're,
not
private
resources.
At
that
point,
so
this
is
I
think
a
set
of
things
inside
of
an
IT
organization
that
is
consumable.
B
So
you
get
a
central
idea
organization
that
is
built
up
and
economically
driven
to
govern
the
consumption
and
reproduction
of
these
things,
these
kind
of
reliable,
primitives
and
importantly,
these
these
resources,
these
types
of
resources,
like
network
storage
and
compute,
are
not
driven
by
the
needs
of
any
individual
organization,
because
they're
commodities
they
are
driven
by
kind
of
global
market
pressures,
not
local
market
pressures
of
a
particular
business.
So
what
I
mean
by
that?
B
Roughly
is
that
if
you
want
to
use
a
certain
compute,
it's
like
there's
a
certain
CPU,
that's
great
and
you
can
invest
in
it,
but
next
year,
because
of
Moore's
law,
you
should
probably
replace
it
because
you're
going
to
be
able
to
create
more
compute
power
and
a
lower
cost
or
trade.
The
lower
compute,
the
lower
seats
created
by
the
new
dies
to
create
electricity
efficiencies
or
air-conditioning
efficiencies.
B
There's
also
two
trade-offs
that
are
involved
in
choosing
how
you
deploy
the
physical
infrastructure
of
your
compute
and
those
those
economics
are
not
driven
by
any
one
firms,
concern
they're,
driven
by
a
large
economic
market
that
that
that
is
out
of
control
of
any
one
firm
and
therefore
the
people
inside
of
this
central
IT
organization
are
captive
to
certain
economic
cycles
that
that
they
cannot
get
out
of
they.
It
doesn't
matter
how
much
the
organization
wants
them
to
do
things
differently.
B
They
they're
trapped
by
it
and
you
can
imagine
things
like
parts
of
the
organization
over
overly
becoming
overly
dependent
on
specific
implementations
of,
for
instance,
storage
or
network
or
compute,
and
the
result
of
that
being
that
the
organization's
central
IT
department
becomes
handcuffed
as
to
the
cycle.
Time
of
replacement
for
those
things
and
therefore
the
efficiencies
that
they're
expecting
to
get
by
following
market
efficiencies
is
reduced
and
problematic.
So
is
there
something
inside
of
IT
organizations
that
isn't
consumed
in
use
like?
B
Is
there
stuff
inside
of
modern
IT
organizations
that
if
more
people
use
them,
it
doesn't
go
away,
but
it
actually
gains
in
value.
So
you
can
think
of
an
idea
of
like.
Are
there?
Is
there
stuff
inside
an
organization
that,
if
I
get
more
and
more
people
to
use
that
stuff,
it
will
become
more
and
more
valuable
instead
of
less
and
less
valuable
right,
so
the
network
becomes
less
and
less
valuable
after
a
tipping
point?
B
So
one
of
the
ways
to
think
of
that
roughly
is
the
that
centralized
IT
departments
only
ever
provide
reliable
things,
whereas
the
this
idea
of
getting
people
to
use
those
reliable
things
in
certain
ways
actually
creates
a
resilient
system
and
and
there's
a
difference
there.
That
I
think
is
important
to
point
to
so
now
we
get
to
this
idea
three
economies.
This
is
this
is
what
I've
kind
of
walked
you
through
right
now
is
the
description
of
what
the
three
economies
inside
an
organization
are.
B
We
have
the
economies
of
differentiation,
the
economies
of
scope
and
the
economies
of
scale,
and
what
we
can
say
is
that
starting
from
the
economy
of
scale,
economies
of
scale
are
responsible
for
the
efficient
reproduction
of
these
primitives
right
and
then,
if
we
go
to
the
other
side,
different
economies
of
differentiation,
are
they
create
value
by
creating
differentiated
functionality
with
rapid
cycle
times,
they're
often
highly
disposable?
This
is
kind
of
like
that.
You're
fail-fast
conceptions
of
the
world
and
they're
and
they're
often
just
sets
of
pre-configured
versions.
B
B
These
resources
that
are
commonly
held,
but
actually
increase
in
value
in
use
and
don't
decrease
in
volume
use
and
again,
that's
things
like
the
cloud
native
patterns,
common
data
structures
and
common
well
factored
functions
right,
okay,
so
great!
What's
what's
the
problem?
Why
doesn't
everybody
just
build
these
scope?
Economy
is
wide
open.
You
know
that
looks
like
a
platform.
I
guess
why
don't
people
just
build
platforms
and
that'll
solve
all
this
right?
That's
just
build
it
and
they
will
come
so,
but
we
know
this
isn't
right.
B
We
know,
based
on
a
lot
of
practice
inside
of
kind
of
software
engineering.
That
kind
of
designed
for
reuse
up
front
well
is
gonna
hit
you
with
the
the
you're,
not
gonna,
need
it
hammer
right,
like
eventually
you're
gonna
end
up
building
too
much
stuff
or
you're
gonna
build
something
and
nobody
don't
want
it
or
build
something.
People
won't
need
it.
So
I
have
some
doubts
about
building
the
platform
first
right.
So
what
so?
What
is
what
is
it
that
we're
kind
of
worried
about
here?
What
are
we
to
get
to?
B
How
do
we?
How
do
we
think
through
that
problem?
Right
so
Copeland
does
a
nice
job
of
saying?
Listen,
you
know
you
don't
have
to
design
for
reuse.
On
the
other
hand,
you
know
good
design
makes
it
easy
to
reuse.
So
one
of
the
things
I
think
that
he's
pointing
at
here
is
that
there
may
be.
This
is
like
a
sequence:
there's
a
there's,
a
way
in
which
we
use
doesn't
come
first,
but
it
can
come
later
and
how
would
you
design
or
thinking
about
designing
a
system
to
allow
that?
B
Second,
now,
it's
reusable
concept
to
kind
of
come
into
play,
so
why
why?
Why
am
I
playing
at
this?
Well
again,
we
talked
about
this
idea
that
differentiation
has
to
do
with
lots
of
different
customers
with
different
needs
and
those
needs
change,
and
when
we're
successful
we
actually
accelerate
the
change
of
those
customers
needs.
So
we
could
think
about.
B
Is
that
this
kind
of
differentiation
economy
we
actually
are
able
only
able
to
kind
of
create
value
by
paying
exquisite
attention
to
the
customers
needs
how
the
customer
defines
value
is
very
important
here,
and
the
good
news
I
think
here
is
that
it
starts
a
flywheel
that
allows
valuable
things
to
be
created
inside
of
an
organization
and
to
be
tested
in
inside
of
small
safe
to
fail
niches
right.
So
there's
no
commits
that.
B
Allow
us
to
you
know,
really
experiment
and
play
with
an
idea
and
then
only
then
after
we
find
a
set
of
customers
who
value
these
things,
then
maybe
we
can
look
up
and
say:
hey.
Is
there
anybody
else
who
might
need
this
data
that
we
just
created?
Is
there
anybody
else
who
might
need
this
function,
that
we've
created
right?
B
So
what
is
what
is
this
thing
that
I,
that
you
guys
all
came
here
to
talk
listening
to
me
rant
about
this
idea
of
re
commenting,
you've
already
heard
of
Commons
you've
heard
now
you've
heard
of
the
three
economies
now
you've
heard
of
like
the
paradox
that
we're
trying
to
solve.
But
what?
What
is?
What
is
this
idea
of
recombinant?
So
we
calmly
I
think
could
be
the
most
simplest
way
to
say
is:
maybe
some
of
the
things
that
start
in
differentiation
may
eventually
be
more
valuable
in
the
economy
of
scope.
B
So
maybe
some
of
the
things
that
you
create
using
the
techniques
of
differentiation
eventually
need
to
be
lets,
say,
promoted
or
or
converted,
or
adopted,
or
recomand
into
this
scope
economy,
where
the
value
of
that
unit
now
becomes
the
way
in
which
other
people
can
use
it
to
achieve
value
for
themselves
right,
it's
a
shared
common
resource
and
then
the
other
side
of
it
is
maybe
maybe
some
of
the
things
that
we,
because
we
currently
don't
have
in
most
organizations
a
concept
of
the
scope
economy.
We
don't
have
a
way
of
thinking
about
shared
resources.
B
We
only
have
a
way
of
thinking
about
like
privately
owned
differentiation,
economies,
logics
or
essentially
owned
scale
logics.
So
maybe
sometimes
part
of
the
friction.
That's
caused
between
the
parts
of
the
organization
that
want
to
create
new
value
comes
from
when
they
give
that
thing
that
that
new,
valuable
thing
they
give
it
to
the
scale
economy
and
the
scale
economy
causes
that
enclosure
problem
that
that
the
tragedy
enclosure
they
don't
actually
leverage
it.
B
Well,
they
don't
understand
how
to
respond
well,
and
so
those
things,
maybe
maybe
some
of
the
things
that
we
currently
attempt
to
rationally
managed
via
centralized
governance.
Maybe
those
things
instead
would
be
more
valuable
managed
in
a
scope
economy
inside
of
a
kind
of
a
platform
system
right.
So
this
may
be
what
what
we
commenting
is.
Maybe
recombinant
is
the
idea
of
taking
things
from
these
two
other
economies
and
putting
them
into
a
scope
economy.
So
let
my
friend
imagine
literally
wrote
a
book
writers
dissertation
on
designing
design-led
recombinant.
B
So
the
whole
idea
here
is
is
driven
by
my
interactions
with
and
I'm
a
huge
debt
to
some
of
these
ideas,
and
he
basically
says
that
he
makes
this
kind
of
platform
part
even
more
explicit
right.
So
maybe
a
platform
could
be
conceptually
understood
as
a
set
of
guiding
principles
to
enable
a
two-sided
market,
in
other
words,
the
kind
of
private
public
market
to
create
and
reveal
a
middle
mass
and
opportunity
in
which
we
could
intervene
and
create
better
outcomes,
and
that
therefore,
platforms
help
us
to
be
common
through
new
approaches
to
negotiating
right.
B
So
what
would
those
negotiation
looks
like
inside
of
an
IT
organization?
Well,
I
think
one
of
them
is
simply
to
understand
the
nature
of
resources
and
somewhat
like
the
way
that
I
described
them
here.
The
way
in
which
resources
have
different
economic
value
in
different
economies,
and
therefore
some
of
those
resources
would
be
more
valuable
if
they
were
treated
or
were
held
in
different
rationalities
or
different
economic
rationality
or
governance
France
right.
B
So
then,
if
we
understood
the
nature
of
the
resources
and
we
could
determine
what
type
of
economic
rationality
would
be
the
optimal
place
to
hold
those
different
resources,
then
we
could
start
by
working
on
establishing
governance
and
social
practices
that
enable
us
to
transition
these
resources
from
one
economy
t-to
enough
to
the
next
now,
I
think
that
this
is
largely
what
what
many
enterprise
organizations
are
going
through
right
now,
what
what
they
mean
by
transforming
their
organization
is
to
understand.
We've
been
doing
scale
economy
for
10
to
15
years.
B
B
B
I
think
Jim,
white
versus
or
argument
that
the
about
the
open
organization,
particularly
this.
This
concept,
that
an
open
organization
engages
in
participative
communities
both
inside
and
outside
and
what
that
does
again
is
is
and
what
I
think
the
three
economies
tries
to
explain
is
how
how
do
organizations
who
do
that
both
respond
to
opportunities
more
quickly
and
leverage
resources
and
talent
inside
and
outside
their
organizations
or
effectively
and
and
I.
Think
that's
one
of
the
arguments
that
you
could
point
out
and
then.
Finally,
the
idea
of
a
platform,
an
idea
of
a
commons.
B
My
very
brief
kind
of
suggestion
here
would
be
Google's
Google's
sree
organization
is,
is
an
organization
that
is
developing
a
commons,
that's
what
they
are
doing:
they're
developing
a
set
of
regulations
that
are
negotiated
locally
and
enforced
globally
in
order
to
create
a
common
resource
that
is
highly
resilient
right.
So
that's
an
example,
so
I
think
and
I
suspect
that
open-source
communities
have
something
to
tell
us
about
how
to
do.
This.
B
I
think
that
open-source
communities
in
fact,
are
well
described
by
Commons
and
they
are
capable
of
creating
Commons
and
and
thinking
through
the
social
practices
and
governance
needed
to
create
a
space
to
work
together.
I
think
that's
a
really
good
description
of
what
we
see
when
we
look
at
open
source.
But
what
what?
If
we
like?
What?
What
could
we?
How
could
we
think
about
that
differently?
B
What
challenges
might
we
think
about
that
differently
by
saying
like,
instead
of
playing
at
source
Commons,
instead
of
pointing
at
the
thing,
the
idea
that
that
what
is
the
resource
that
we're
creating
that's
commonly
held
as
source
code
in
order
to
make
the
challenge
something
that
causes
us
to
rethink
it?
What
lessons
could
we
take
from
there
and
apply
to
something
like
a
data
Commons
where
the
commonly
held
resource
isn't
source
code
but
data?
How
would
we,
how
would
we
kind
of
think
through
that?
B
And
what
what
lessons
would
we
take
from
the
open
source
community
in
order
to
establish
a
data
Commons
inside
of
an
enterprise,
because
God
knows
no
one
has
siloed
data
inside
of
organizations,
that's
hard
for
other
teams
to
use,
and
maybe
that,
like
the
simplest
version
of
this
talk,
is
this
idea
about?
How
can
we
make
Stone
Soup
in
the
enterprise?
How
can
we
get
people
to
contribute
to
the
common
plate
and
what
is
the?
How
is
the
transformation
from
this
work,
these
organizations
that
are
in
conflict
between
two
primary
dominant
rationales?
B
How
is
the
transformation
started
in
a
way
that
enables
this
third
economy,
this
scoped
economy
or
the
Commons
to
create
a
space
to
negotiate
value
and
value
creation
inside
of
our
organizations?
So
my
question
is:
what
can
the
open
source
community
teach
us
about?
Recombinant,
and
that's
that's
question
for
you
guys,
so
thank
you
for
listening
to
me.
Rant
I,
have
a
lot
of
resources
and
I'll
make
the
slides
available.
A
A
That
is
around
the
ecosystem
of
open
ship,
which
is
kind
of
what
I
really
like
having
you
here
today
and
invited
you
to
do
because
I
think
one
thing
that
often
an
open
source
we're
very
focused
on
the
software.
You
know
the
code,
the
pieces
and
parts
of
that
and
from
a
community
point
of
view,
and
so
this
conversation
kind
of
opens
us
up
to
a
bigger,
a
higher
level
conversation
that
I
would
like
to
continue
with
you
with
the
open
ships,
community
and
other
communities
that
are.
A
You
know
part
of
that
ecosystem,
which
is
huge.
We
you
and
I
have
talked
about
what
I
call
the
jellyfish
effect.
All
the
different
people
in
the
the
network
of
all
the
cross
community
collaborations
that
we
do
to
bring
people
together,
whether
it's
upstream
downstream
projects,
its
end
users
or
different
use
cases.
It's
is
a
huge
tangle
mass
of
jellyfish
that
connect
in
different
ways
through
their
tentacles.
It's
the
best
metaphor.
A
We
can
teach
people
agile.
We
can
make
people
DevOps.
We
can.
You
know
you
know,
shut
off
the
waterfall
or
whatever
we
want
to
talk
about,
but
for
us
software
is
like
if
I
write,
a
piece
of
software
or
share
it
is
open-source.
It's
infinitely.
Reusable
doesn't
cost
me
anything
to
give
people
that
software
in
a
github
repo,
but
if
I
want
to
maintain
it,
get
tech
support
on
it.
Have
engineering
resources,
debug
stuff?
Those
are
people
and
people
have
limited
bandwidth.
A
So
you
know
how
does
people
fit
in
T
as
a
resource
fit
into
this
Commons
thing.
I.
Think
that
that's
one
thing
I'd
like
to
tease
out
a
little
bit.
We
could
talk
about
what
open
ship
comes
in
the
moment,
but
that
was
one
of
the
things
at
the
beginning.
It's
like
it
was
very
focused
on
I
would
say
tangible
resources.
You
know
considered
tangible
ish.
That's.
B
Right
I
think
so,
I
think
one
of
the
things
to
think
through
and
we
could
think
through
it
kind
of
an
open-source
community
level
or
even
inside,
of
an
enterprise,
one
of
the
things
to
think
about
a
scope
economy,
view
of
an
individual
person
right.
So
like
what
is
again,
we
have
this
idea
of
something's
consumable
inside
that
inside
that
individual
human,
that
that's
their
time,
their
life
force
right
their
attention.
All
these
things
are
consumable
right.
B
They
can't
and-
and
we
get
all
sorts
of
interesting
kind
of
theories
about
how
to
manage
that
limiting
whip
or
project
management
centrally
controlled
versus
individually
control,
same
types
of
things
right,
but
the
scope
economy
wants
to
kind
of
whether
the
commons
style
economy
want
the
plaintiffs.
I
think
in
a
subtly
different
thing
and
that's
to
say
that,
like
how
do
if
Ike
release
something,
what
are
the
practices
for
rapidly
establishing
other
people
who
share
my
concerns
so
that
they
will
help
me
maintain
it?
B
How
do
I
expose
the
common
concerns
of
the
thing
that
I'm
putting
in
the
world
so
that
I
accelerate
the
adoption
of
it,
but
also
make
clear
that
the
value
of
it
is
a
shared
value?
It's
not
not
something
I'm
gonna
manage
something
we're
gonna
manage
right
and
and
I
do
think
that
in
lots
of
organizations
and
in
lots
of
communities,
this
is
a
difficult
negotiation,
because
the
dominant
concepts
of
governance
are
either.
B
You
essentially
control
it,
and
therefore
you
have
to
go
out
and
pay
for
resources
or
you
privately
owned
it,
in
which
case
you
do
it
and
you
have
to
sell
it
for
value
right,
and
one
of
that
weird
kind
of
things
that
I
didn't
put
in
here,
but
I
would
I
would
kind
of
point
out.
Is
that
a
lot
of
that
negotiation
about
value
as
an
individual
has
to
do
with
the
difference
between
what's
called
transactional
relationships
and
reciprocity
relationships?
B
And
so
a
transexual
relationship
is
really
easy,
is
either
central,
centralized
group
that's
governing
or
a
private
and
held
group,
and
every
time
you
do
something
you
think
of
it
as
an
individual
transaction
with
that
group.
I'm
gonna
do
something
and
I'm
gonna
get
value
immediately
from
it
or
not,
but
it's
a
when
I'm
done
with
this
interaction
that
we
start
anew
right.
So
that's
kind
of
like
traditional
and
the
other
way
to
think
about
it
is
that
this
isn't
the
only
way,
only
time
I'm
going
to
interact
with
this.
B
In
fact,
I'm
gonna
interact
with
it
a
lot
over
time
and
I
over
time,
I'm
going
to
like
repeatedly
come
back
to
this
resource
and
therefore
it's
not
a
transactional
thing.
It's
not
something.
I
can
walk
away
from
my
contribution
or
my
consumption
at
any
one
moment.
Isn't
the
problem.
It's
my
contribution
on
my
consumption
over
a
long
period
of
time.
B
So,
like
the
really
silly
way
to
say
this
is
like
you
and
I
go
get
beer
if
I
take
out
like
a
tab
and
I
write
down,
Diane
I
just
paid
$5.00
for
your
beer
and
then
we
keep
going
I
just
got
you
another
round.
That's
so
you
know
only
$10,
that's
a
transactional
relationship
right
and,
and
it's
unlikely
to
create
a
trust
system
that
allows
us
to
kind
of
expand.
Our
network
of
trust
and
there's
also
a
whole
set
of
ideas
that
say
that
trust
is
like
a
it's
like
a
resource
in
itself.
B
B
A
Think
I
think
that's
the
nail
on
the
head
there
is
that
building
the
relationships
with
with
the
trust
factor
embedded
inside
of
communities
I
mean
think.
That's
the
goal
of
everyone
like
myself,
who
does
Community
Development
and
tries
to
build
community
engaged
communities
around
any
ecosystem.
Is
that
how
do
we
ensure
that
there
is
trust
and
that's
where
some
of
the
some
of
the
governance
stuff
comes
in,
but
it's
also
about
building
the
peer-to-peer
networks
and
the
trust
relationships
in
that
community?
A
B
Yeah
I
do
think
so
here's,
my
very
short
answer
is
that
I
think
most
organizations
who
don't
have
a
platform
team
are
gonna.
Have
problems
like
there
has
to
actually
be
people
who
own
this
space
and
who
work
with
others
to
establish
it
right.
So
I
do
think
that
the
three
economies
points
away
from
conceptions.
Like
you
run
it.
That's
all
you
build
it.
You
run
it
and
points
towards
conceptions
like
I
build
it.
B
We
run
it,
in
other
words,
there's
a
conception
that
I'm
responsible
for
building
a
thing
that
is
operable
in
all
three
economies.
It
doesn't
mean
I
have
to
operate
it
in
all
three
economies,
but
then
it
responds
to
and
understands
enough
about
those
other
economic
value
systems
that
it
doesn't
frustrate
them.
B
So,
like
one
could
argue
like
DevOps,
is
simply
the
argument
that
people
from
efficiency
economies
should
explain
themselves
better
to
people
of
differentiation
economies
so
that
people
in
differentiation
amee's
understand
how
the
way
they
write
code
is
creating
value
in
an
operation
or
not
so
operability
designed
for
operability
design
for
manufacture
all
these.
These
concepts,
so
yeah
I,
do
think
in
enterprises.
A
B
B
One
of
the
arguments
is
to
say
that
if
you
can
only
scale
so
much,
then
you
should
be
focused
on
scaling
the
right
things
and
understand
how
to
determine
what
those
things
are
and
who
creates
value
that
will
scale
the
fastest
right
and
so
I
would
also
point
out
just
really
quickly
that
I
think
what
your
the
question
is
driven
by
questions
about
how
to
scale
as
opposed
to
scale
economies.
So
one's
about
growth
and
one's
about
efficiency
and
there's
there
there's
the
same
term
but
they're
different
ideas.
I.
A
Think
that
I
think
we
see
like
even
in
the
open
shift
Commons
and
in
the
conversations
that
I
have
with
people.
There's
there's
an
interesting
thing,
and
this
is
different
than
enterprises,
so
we're
talking
about
and
an
open-source
community
built
out
around
the
OpenShift
ecosystem,
which
touches
on
lots
of
open-source
projects,
not
just
kubernetes
but
a
bazillion
other
ones.
A
And
what
we
see
is
this
huge
amorphous
software
side
of
things
so
like
the
stack
of
things
that
become
OpenShift
and
then
there's
the
wild,
the
thorah
or
cornucopia
of
the
use
cases
of
people
who
build
applications
on
top
of
it.
So,
like
all
the
different
use
cases
and
when
we're
when
I
know
I'm
just
drawing
this
back
to
community
development
a
little
bit
and
the
open
ship
Commons
idea
is
that
we
want
all.
We
want
to
support
all
of
these
different
use
cases.
We
want
that.
A
A
It
turned
out
to
be
a
really
good
bet,
yep,
which
is
great,
but
it
also
changed
the
way
we
did
community
and
which
is
hence
we
needed
to
do
something
different
than
like.
Oh,
please
contribute
to
my
little
github
repo
here
on
my
Ruby
on
Rails
or
mine.
Whatever
my
installer
process
was
back
then
or,
and
we
had
gears
and
cartridges.
Believe
me,
you
don't
want
to
talk
about
that,
but
it
changed
our
whole
metaphor
for
community
yeah.
A
I
think
that
was
a
really
interesting
tipping
point
for
for
me
in
terms
of
community
engagement
and
community
development,
because
it
no
longer
was
about.
Please
please,
please
contribute
my
open-source
project.
It
was
please
please,
please
contribute
to
the
upstream
here:
contribute
the
upstream
there
give
us.
Your
feedback
will
contribute
that
you
know,
so
it
just
changed
the
whole
model,
which
caused
us
to
have
to
rethink
what
community
was
yeah
and
that's
where
you
know
back.
A
You
know
back
four
or
five
years
ago
he
started
rereading
the
tragedy
of
the
Commons
and
all
this
stuff
we
came
up
with
or
I
I
really
didn't
want
to
start
another
foundation,
yeah
so
I
had
this,
and
anyone
who
knows
me
knows
that
you
know
as
much
as
I
participate
in
a
lot
of
foundations.
I
don't
have
a
great
love
for
them
in
terms
of
them.
You
know
big
tenting
or
whatever.
A
Lessons
learn
best
practices,
while
still
motivating
people
to
contribute
to
all
these
other
open-source
projects
and
to
give
us
the
feedback
so
that
we
could
successfully
do
that
and
I
think
that
has
made
all
the
difference
for
OpenShift
and
for
Red
Hat,
because
one
it
applied
some
of
the
principles
of
things
like
the
open
organization
that
that
Whitehurst
has
really
helped
us
move
forward
as
a
company
and
I
think
those
kinds
we
talked
about
transformations.
That
was
a
transformation
for
us.
A
Making
the
decisions
to
go
to
a
Commons
model
was
huge
and
we
still
struggle
and
we
still
struggle
with
having
enough-
and
this
is
why
I
brought
up
the
people.
Resource
issue
is
having
enough
people
to
engage
with
everybody
successfully,
but
I
the
trick
or
what
was
it?
Keyser
söze
said
the
devil
once
how
did?
How
did
that
phrase
go,
but
the
trick
the
devil
played
was
people
never
even
realizing
was
there
or
some,
and
that
is
the
trick
with
the
Commons
I.
Think.
A
Is
that
because
it's
become
you,
if
you
go
into
the
common
slack
or
in
the
chat
channels
or
anywhere
you'll,
see
peers
who
are
non
Red
Hatters
talking
to
other
peers
who
are
non
Red
Hatters
and
exchanging
best
practices?
That's
the
whole
idea
behind
the
gatherings
and
what
we
do
there
is
to
you
know,
because
there
is
no
better
commercial
for
OpenShift,
then
a
customer
standing
up
on
stage
and
speaking
the
truth
or
their
truth
and
or
a
customer
or
an
end
user
or
a
developer.
A
And
you
know
one
of
the
upstream
projects
coming
on
and
saying.
Oh,
this
is
how
Prometheus
does
this,
and
this
is
you
know,
and
please
give
us
your
feedback
and
we'll
see
if
we
can
fix
it
or
please
join
our
so
facilitating
those
things.
Those
are
the
kinds
of
toolings
I.
Think
one
we're
bringing
open-source
methodologies
to
the
Commons.
You
know
so
I
and
our
open
organization
practices
that
we
have
at
Red
Hat,
so
their
enterprise
practices,
but
we're
also
really
opening
up
the
the
gate.
A
We're
giving
away
the
podium
we're
allowing
piers
to
talk
to
each
other
without
RedHat
in
the
middle.
But
there's
a
interesting
thing
when
and
I
think
that's
what
fits
in
the
scale
economy.
That
is
the
thing
that
makes
Commons
not
just
open
ship
guns,
but
things
that
are
Commons
or
we
come.
We
recommend
open
source,
basically
what
I'm,
what
I've
been
trying
to
do
over
the
past
three
or
four
years,
whether
I'm,
successful
or
not,
I,
don't
know
I
mean
you
know.
A
I
still
have
do
a
lot
of
hand-holding
and
you
know,
and
that's
where
the
people
stuff
comes
in
is
how
do
you
scale
that
and
I
think
some
of
using
other
technologies,
like
slack
or
you
know
all
of
all
of
the
tooling
that
we
have
so
that's
that's
an
interesting
thing
to
tease
out
about
what
is
recombinant
and
like
I.
Think
it's
not.
What
can
open-source
teach
us
about
recommending?
How
can
we
recom
an
open-source?
A
B
A
Much
not
where
we
were
back,
and
you
know
when
I
started
back
in
dicus
and
Digital
Equipment
Corporation
days,
because
I
got
some
gray
hair
here
too,
it's
it's
really.
It's
very
much
changed,
but
I
think
it
still
needs
to
change
again.
I
think
we
have
to
find
a
way
to
make
it
not
as
gay
gatekeeping
it's
not
the
control
that
you
talk
about,
he's
on
one
side
and
then
and
have
the
wide
variety
and
the
scoping
of
open
doors
and
the
way
we
do
open
source.
A
So
a
lot
of
the
principles
you
talk
about
applying
this
stuff
to
enterprises
I,
on
the
other
hand,
want
to
apply
it,
do
open
source
and
to
the
way
we
work
and-
and
it's
nothing
I
want
to
break
foundations.
It
said
I
want
to
change
the
whole
model
and
I
think
it
has
to
in
order
for
open-source
to
really
go
to
the
true
next
level
of
being
able
to
scale
both
of
those
things,
and
we
see
constantly
things
breaking
down.
We
always
hit
with
the
foundation
model.
A
This
tipping
point
like,
where,
like
with
OpenStack
and
its
big
tent
model
and
we're
starting
to
touch
on
it
with
some
of
the
stuff
in
the
Linux
Foundation,
the
CN
CN
CN
CF.
So
I
want
to
have
this
ongoing
conversation
with
you
over
the
next
couple
of
years
or,
however
long
it
takes
about
both
bringing
this
three
economies
to
enterprises
as
well
as
uh-huh
open-source
community
development,
I.
B
Love
that
I
mean
you
know
I,
just
the
the
importance
of
realizing
that
there's
other
ways
of
collaborating
together
is
really
critical
and
I.
You
know
again
I
like
the
idea
you
know
of
recombinant
source,
where
it
means
like
open
source
started
as
a
commons
and
then
was
privatized
and
now
needs
to
be
recom
and
and
in
which
ways
has
it
been
privatized
and
and
how
is
that
working
well
or
not,
and
you
know
I
think
it's
super
interesting
to
talk
through
those
ideas,
not
but
I.
Also.
B
Think
again,
you
know
we
can
think
about
things
like
the
reason
why
open-source
projects
are
successful
is
because
work.
One
of
the
questions
I
always
have
about
open
source
projects.
That
I
think
is
interesting.
One
of
the
observations
I
always
have
is
like
opens.
Are
the
successful
open
source
projects
tend
to
be
large
infrastructure?
Alisa's
right
like
so,
you
have
databases
operating
systems,
platforms
right,
they
don't
tend
to
be
like
little
applications.
B
They
don't
tend
to
be
differentiation
stuff
right,
they
tend
to
be
big
stuff
and
part
of
that
I
think
is
just
has
to
do
with
it.
You
have
actually
have
to
create
something
that
addresses
a
large
enough
audience
of
concern
that
you
can
find
enough
people
to
support
it,
because
you're
asking
for
small
contributions
at
scale
in
order
to
create
this
space
right.
So
you
get
this
weird
thing
where,
like
the
negotiations
that
you
pointed
to
about,
like
I,
want
it
to
do
this
versus,
we
need
it
to
do
this
right.
B
These
kind
of
like
edge
cases
versus
core
cases
and
things
like
that.
All
that
stuff
is
part
of
the
negotiation
that
I
think
is
critical
for
large
enterprises
to
understand,
because
right
now,
the
way
that
I
generally
see
one
of
the
big
problems
inside
of
enterprises,
that
that
looks
that
it's
at
least
fractally,
like
what
you
just
described,
is
lots
of
business
units,
building,
something
that
is
initially
only
valuable
to
them,
but
eventually
becomes
valuable
to
other
business
units,
and
then
they
don't
have
anywhere
to
put
it
yeah.
B
They
don't
have
anywhere
that
you
either
gonna
put
it
in
the
centralized
IT
department,
which
they
believe
will
destroy
the
value
of
it
and
make
it
harder
for
them
to
use
yeah
or
they
keep
it.
For
themselves,
and
so
they
don't
have
a
way
of
creating
community
around
a
common
resource,
they
don't
know
how
to
do
that,
and
so
that's
part
of
the
transformation
journey
for
me
is
to
help
them.
B
You
know
and
help
other
communities
understand
that
certain
things
are
only
valuable
when
they're
shared
at
scale
or
that
they
gain
value
by
being
shared
at
scale,
and
they
don't
get
invited
on
go
down.
It
goes
up
for
everybody
involved
and
that's
the
trick
is
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
get
people
to
understand
the
economic
rationality
of
that
and
then
my
only
last
weird
little
comment.
It's
like
you
were
talking
about
like
we
only
have
so
many
people.
How
do
we
deploy
them?
Well,
economics.
B
Is
the
study
of
rare
resources
applied
to
hard
problems
right?
That's
the
whole
idea
of
value
is
rare
resources
being
applied,
and
the
question
of
any
economic
rationality
is:
how
do
we?
How
do
we
apply
that
rare
resources
to
get
the
most
value
in
our
economic
rank
and
part
of
the
importance
of
understanding
the
scope
economy
is
to
say
that
the
other
two
economies
literally
destroy
the
value
of
the
Commons?
So
we
need
to
understand
this
other
economic
resource
and
this
other
knee
economic
rationality.
B
A
Ben,
who
I
think
is
one
of
your
colleagues,
had
a
comment
in
the
chat?
Is
that
he's
he
says,
I
fear,
commenting,
commenting,
isn't
a
value
commonly
held
organizations
start
changing
towards
valuing
recombinant
and
I
would
actually
answer
that
quickly
that
that
one
of
the
things
that
changed
it
for
us
within
the
open
shift
context
was
looking
at
it
as
an
ecosystem.
A
So
when,
when
we
realize
that
we,
we
were
more
than
just
depending
on
this
stuff
or
making
a
profit
from
this
stuff,
when
we
changed
our
worldview
or
our
paradigm
to
be
more
ecosystem
focused.
That
was
something
that
then
shifted
everything,
at
least
within
within
our
organization
and
in
the
Commons
and
I.
Think
that's
one
thing,
one
behavior
or
way
of
thinking
that
changes
things
to
be
to
make
people
understand,
commenting
as
as
a
thing
and
recover
so.
B
So
I
think
that
where
we
are
basically
volunteering
to
limit
our
extraction
of
the
system
in
order
to
make
sure
that
we
can
extract
from
the
system,
there's
nothing
wrong
with
profiting
in
a
buff
of
the
Commons
people.
Do
it
all
the
time
it's
whether
or
not
that
profit
is
sustainable
and
how
the
Eco
systemic
effects
of
that
profit
apply
right
and
that's
exactly
it.
It's
that
it's
the
economic
sustainability
of
the
system
that
we're
looking
for
and.
A
All
that
filters
down
to
the
open
and
tracing
functionality
that
built
in
to
open
ship
and
kubernetes.
You
know,
though,
and
I
think
at
a
large
scale,
one
of
the
the
things
that
we
need
to
work
on
better,
whether
it's
a
at
CNC
up
in
the
foundations
or
Linux
Foundation
or
any
of
those
folks
or
in
the
Commons
or
you
know,
just
in
general,
is
building
tools
or
ways
of
being.
You
know
visually
upon
being
notified
connecting
that,
because
the
first
step
for
me
has
always
been
awareness.
B
A
And
if
you
aren't
aware
of
other
people
in
your
space
or
other
use
cases
or
whatever
it
is
same
thing
applies
in
an
enterprise.
If
you
aren't
aware
of
what's
going
on
in
those
other
cells
and
even
at
Red,
Hat
you've
seen
things
like
a
product
get
released
that
has
ripple
effects
on
other
people
and
he's
not
even
you
know,
we
are
all
open
source
but
and
when
you
think,
we'd
be
good
at
this,
but
every
once
in
a
while,
someone
will
release
something,
maybe
like
holy
crap,
a
condition
3.
You
know
whatever
those
kinds.
B
Of
things
when
we
talk
about
like
I
like
using
the
concepts
that
people
are
exploring
with
observability,
to
point
out
what
you're
talking
about
right,
like
one
of
the
things
about
observability,
is
to
say
like
what
conversations
do
we
want
to?
Have
you
having?
What
decisions
do
we
want
to
be
making?
How
can
we
make
the
system
that
we're
managing
together
visible?
How
do
we
get
the
data
we
need
to
make
those
decisions
together
so
that
everybody
understands
the
decision,
because
the
data
is
presented
in
a
way
that
makes
sense
to
everybody?
B
So
this
whole
set
of
like
what
observability
does
inside
of
a
system
and
how
you
make
these
things
more
visible
and
then
other
thing.
It's
like
making
things
observable
in
a
way
that
modifies
the
behavior
of
people
participating
in
the
Commons,
so
that
that
that
you
support
the
ability
to
maintain
certain
behaviors
by
showing
people
and
helping
them
understand,
what's
happening
and
so
I
think
exactly
kind
of
like
you
were
using
the
concept
of
visualizing,
but
like
communicating
this
information
across
an
ecosystem
in
a
in
a
different
way.
Frankly
than
the
like
hierarchy.
B
You
know
some
are
summarized
up,
because
that's
not
really
what
we're
talking
about
here
and-
and
that
doesn't
work
particularly
well,
and
it's
also
not
necessarily
about
kind
of
addressing
a
governmental
body.
Who
would
give
you,
like
here's,
here's
a
standard
sheet
form
for
you
to
fill
out
to
determine
whether
or
not
you
are
fitting
best
practice
right
now
and
therefore
our
pre-approved
to
continue
right.
Both
of
those
are
extreme
opposites
of
the
kind
of
type
of
interaction
we
want
to
point.
It
I
think.
A
There's
a
lot
of
three
tiers.
You
know
observability
for
the
wind
and
good
things
in
there
and
like
I,
know
one
of
the
and
I
as
much
as
I,
say
things
like
and
I
must
the
anti
foundation
I'm
not
like
I
do
a
lot
of
work
with
the
CMC
f
and
all
of
the
different
projects
there
and
if
you
ever
look
at
the
landscape
diagram
for
the
the
CNC
F,
it's
just
chaotic
and
crazy.
A
There
are
so
many
projects
and
things
at
different
levels
and
even
within
like
breaking
down
within
RedHat
the
barriers
for
everybody,
not
just
upper
management,
but
participants
in
different
engineering
projects
of
that
to
see
where
all
of
their
colleagues
are
touching
points
inside
of
that
ecosystem.
So
if
we
break
there's
the
open
ship
ecosystem,
which
is
expands
well
beyond
just
the
CNC
of
stuff,
but
trying
to
create
the
you
know,
I
hate
to
use
the
word
dashboard,
but
a
way
that's
open
and
transparent
across
just
RedHat.
A
So
this
is
an
enterprise
problem
inside
of
Red
Hat
is
letting
everybody
know
who
is
participating
in
the
scenes.
We've
got
people
working
on
all
kinds
of
SIG's
all
kinds
of
projects
and
no
one
place
where
they
can
all
go
to
see
observe.
Shall
we
say
where
their
colleagues
are
at.
You
know
and
we're.
You
know
where
there
are
resources
from
Red,
Hat
alone
and
I
know:
that's
not
existing
inside
of
CN
CF
in
any
way
or
like
so
there's
this
whole
idea
and
I
think
we
are
just
at
the
very
cusp
of
it.
A
We
are
oh
it's
what
it's
not.
What
is
this
silly
phrase?
It's
not
what
we
know,
but
what
we
don't
know
we
know
or
what
we
know
it's
what
we
don't
know
that
we
don't
know
right.
It's
that
it's
the
physics
of
the
thing
you
know
it's
like
it's
it's
crazy
and
until
we
can
observe
it,
we
really
can't
do
much
more
and
I
think
we're
only
right
now
in
the
recombinant
open-source
or
my
efforts
around
open
and
shipped
comments
at
the
awareness
level.
A
B
The
the
thing
that
I
would
point
to
that
I'm
not
convene
really
studied
him,
particularly
deeply
I'm,
not
sure
that
he
shares
what
the
three
economies
is
saying
in
that
the
three
economies
model
argues
that
all
three
different
economic
systems
need
to
coexist.
It's
not
we're
not
trying
to
replace
the
other
two
economic
systems,
we're
trying
to
mediate
the
other
two
by
creating
a
third
so
and
that
that's
not
true
for
all
organizations
like
you
I
would
assume
that
something
like
the
openshift
Commons
needs
to
just
be
a
Commons.
A
They're
there
there's
so
much
they're
there,
so
I
I
think
that
we
could
probably
do
this
every
week.
Have
this
conversation
and
I
really
think
that
I
want
to
keep
diving
into
some
of
this
stuff
with
you
on
a
regular
basis
and
with
Ben,
but
in
folks
and
Barbara?
Yes,
I
definitely
will
I
think
this
is
really
valuable
and
thought-provoking
stuff,
because
one
it
informs
me
as
I.
Do
the
community
development
for
openshift
and
as
we
bring
these,
what
I,
try
and
do
is.
A
Think
it's
not
it's
not
what
you
can
do
for
open
or
not
what
you
can
do
for
the
enterprise
it's
what
we
can
do
for
each
other
and
that
I
think
is,
is
the
crux
of
all
this
I
think
me
and
I
will
have
to
tease
this
out
of
these
I.
Think
I'm
gonna
have
to
digest
everything.
We've
talked
about
here
today,
a
little
bit
watch
this
video
again,
but
I
kind
of
think
that
Commons
or
what
we're
doing
with
open
chip
Commons
is
that
scale
economy.
A
B
A
You
can
join
the
transformation,
sig
I,
don't
think
it's
on
the
homepage,
yet
I
think
I
still
have
to
do
that,
but
I
will
shortly
just
reach
out
to
us.
You
can
find
us
on
Twitter
and
we
will
definitely
give
away
the
podium.
That
is
my
whole
shtick
in
life
as
much
as
you
think
that
I
like
to
talk
I,
don't
even
like
the
sound
of
my
own
voice,
I'm
much
rather
than
Gabe
talk.
So
thank
you
all
for
joining
us
today
and
again.
A
This
will
all
be
uploaded
on
YouTube
and
available
on
twitch
TV,
to
listen
to
in
your
leisure
and
go
back.
Make
sure
everybody's
bedtime
story
is
Stone
Soup,
please
get
a
copy
from
the
library
go,
buy
a
copy
whatever
it
is
just
find
it
and
read
it.
It
is
the
book.
I
grew
up
with
and
I
think
it
really
formed
the
basis
of
free,
open
source
Diane.
How
things
go
you.