 All right. So we had, I think, a vigorous discussion that was quite good. I'll just kind of highlight kind of the big ideas that we came up with. Some of them are likely to be similar with some of the other groups. So what we, one of the big ideas, is centered around the concept that the tools for comparative genomics are lacking or an infancy and none leverage phenomics simultaneously. In terms of, let's say, take the primary sequence to predicting all the annotations such as enhancers all the way to, you know, transcriptomics. So we need those types of tools, and particularly in terms of some elements of the chromosomes, particularly like the Y chromosomes, are not very well available. So we need functional tools and data essentially. If you have all these emerging genomes and we know that there's lots of them sequenced or re-sequenced now, kind of a one-stop, kind of a box shop for annotation, as well as discovery of what's in them and being able to compare them across FILA. So we need to develop platforms like for standardized protocols, repositories, developers and tools to basically allow for people to kind of crowdsource and also understand what other people have in terms of leveraging what the individuals have for the collective in terms of being able to conduct a true comparative genomics type phenomics projects. So one idea would be to kind of develop something very similar to what the Arabidopsis community developed a few years ago that also includes kind of a science-based social media approach that you can learn from each other in terms of how to do these different things. So funding for data analysis and data reuse is lacking, so developing this type of community might be good. Also, the idea I think was also broached earlier, a dedicated study section for comparative genomics would be quite useful for most of us in the community, but also I think so right now the idea is that you fund through a competition-based mechanism rather than a collaboration-based mechanism, and so that might be very advantageous, particularly if you have some of these multi-PI-like program projects or other type of systems, I know that they call these different in the NSF and the USDA world, but basically multiple PI-type proposals that allows for a true comparative view of different types of either hypothesis-driven research or evolutionary biology-driven research or so forth and so on. So kind of a large, another kind of big idea is, you know, can you understand how like an entire organism functions? So kind of one of the ideas would be, you know, several years ago there was the NIH basically funded a knockout mouse project, right? The idea was to knockout every single gene in a mouse and discover its phenotype, and some of that was just provision of embryonic stem cells to allow for individual investigators to do this. Some of it actually was accomplished by the Jackson Laboratories with a really high throughput phenomics type of studies, but to be honest that approach actually didn't yield very much at all, and that's one of the things that, you know, you might just, could we pick an organism and learn everything from the birth to death of that organism and then leverage that through a comparative approach.