 So, this is a pretty granular discussion that maybe is better held in a smaller group of folks. And I think what we came out of what, at least Tara and I, in trying to think of what we would sort of sum up with, you know, we'd hope that each of the work groups would have one really clear, pithy recommendation. The problem is the groups did so well that most of them came up with six or seven clear, pithy recommendations. And it's sort of hard to summarize 36 clear and pithy recommendations in a short period of time. So, instead, what we think makes a lot more sense is to actually, since this is a series of meetings focused on genomic medicine, is to think about those six working groups that we had, including the workshop that Pearl's group now led, which has been promoted, Pearl doesn't know this yet, has been promoted to a working group, to be discussed, and with one of the goals which you saw from Dan, being to have a couple of working group calls between now and the May meeting and actually work towards some deliverables, some prioritization of the six pithy suggestions each group had into at least what the most important, the second most important and the third most important priorities are. And one of the main action items at the May meeting will be for each of those six working groups to have some time to report back on what they accomplished and what their now very clear prioritized list of recommendations is. NHGRI has volunteered to help coordinate, NHGRI Terry Minoglio has volunteered to help coordinate. To try to talk. To try to help coordinate. We will do the best we can but we can't do, you know, seven groups. And see if we can move things forward in that way. Does that sound like a plan that more effectively captures things than us just trying to make a rush to judgment in the last, you know, 20 minutes of what's been a really terrific meeting in terms of getting a lot of important information on the table. And I think it's squarely within the purview of what these genomic medicine meetings were all about to actually try to lay out a plan. And I think the groups did a great job of that. So everybody in agreement or are there comments or concerns about that approach? A lot of people. And I would just emphasize that these committees should not be infinitely long. And they should all have like a finite lifetime and a, well, maybe even before, I mean sort of they decide what they decide and then they move on. Sure. I think the goal is to come out with a prioritized list of what the key issues in each of the areas is. And to the extent that we just had a great five or ten minute discussion about what calling should be, you know, some very granular recommendations about how to address that would really be helpful. All right, is there, so we have chairs for those. We will assume, unless we hear otherwise from you, that the chairs are at least willing to serve a little bit of additional duty going forward towards the May meeting. And if you have concerns, speak with Terry or I about that. You're it, and if you don't want to be it, you have to tag somebody else. But for the time being, if you're willing to continue, that would be very helpful. At least it can be in the group and find another chair if you want. All right. Does that sound like good next steps? Oh, it was just, it was when we had a more leisurely pace, it was meant to provide some comedy about not even being able to agree with in our pharmacogenomics group about whether it's sequence or genotyping. Now that we have, they have a few months, they'll figure it all out in the next few months. So I don't think there's an issue. So I think with that, unless there's any burning issues that anybody else has, I think it's been a very successful meeting. And I hope everyone has safe travels home. And Terry or Eric, do you have any comments you'd like to add? We're very excited about this. We think this has been a great coming together in two meetings, and we'd like to continue, but not to drive everybody nuts. Thanks.