 All right, welcome everyone. Thank you for joining us in this last session of the day. I know it's a little low energy. Yes, there we go. Awesome. Thank you so, so much. We're going to talk today about empowering rapid innovation in the Drupal community. I think this is a topic that you've seen sort of throughout the conference in the Dries Note presentation, in the Drupal Association board meeting, in the Making Big Things Happen in Drupal panel. There's a whole theme going on throughout the conference today. But before we dive into these topics, we're going to go through some sort of questions for each other as panelists, but also hopefully have a chance to have a dialogue with you all as well, answer some questions and see what we can do from there. But let's do some introductions. I'm going to go in the order of the slides, I think, for the benefit of the recording. So Anup, would you introduce yourself first? My name is Anup John. I have been running this company, Six Way Technologies, since 2006. And for the last year or so, I've also been running the Drupal news website, The Drop Times. Awesome. And Rachel, the one with the fabulous production quality, is going to go next. Thanks, Rachel. Larsson, if everyone can remind Dries to mention Larsson, not mention Norfolk. Norfolk is not my surname. Is he good at music? I used to run the Drupal Association, doing some community things there. And I recently moved over to the United Nations Foundation to work with the Digital Impact Alliance. I was a community strategy type person there, working on really good fun things like a Gustak. I suggest you have a little bit of Gustak. We're going to do some interesting things with building blocks for changing government IT. Awesome. Thank you, Rachel. And Adam, who was able just barely by the skin of his teeth to be here with us in person. Why don't you go next? I'm Adam. I live right down the road, but apparently it still takes me three and a half hours to get here. I work at Red Hat. I oversee the developer organization there. And we do products and some fun stuff in a lot of open source. Awesome. Thanks, everyone. And I'm Tim Lennon, Hestanet on Drupal.org. You have seen me all over the stage, so I won't belabor the point too much. But I am the CTO of the Drupal Association, so the Drupal Association, as you hopefully know by now for doing our job, is the nonprofit organization that supports the Drupal community that puts on DrupalCon. And with your membership dollars and supporting partner dollars makes contribution possible in the Drupal community. So with that, we're going to roll in and get started talking first about sort of what is our objective here. Anup, you kind of spearheaded organizing this whole panel and getting things together. Would you like to speak to this first and talk a little bit about your goals for this conversation? Yes. Thank you, Tim. What we're trying to do here is to get an understanding that we need to organize ourselves better as a community based on some of these numbers that we're going to look at based on some of these questions that we are going to look at. That we can do a much better job as a community and that we have to do that. If we organize ourselves better, we can achieve some of these ambitious targets that we are setting ourselves up for. So the objective that we're looking for is to get this understanding first, agree that we have to act on it and then organize ourselves so that we can bring that structure into our community into helping us contribute towards all of this. Thanks. And I think to get to some of the brass tacks here, we're going to look at some statistics about the sort of state of the community, the state of contribution, some things not that should concern us necessarily, but should make us think about how we want to move forward together and what we might need to do to reinvigorate and re-inspire the community. So some statistics that we wanted to share that have both positive and negative features to them are the rates of contributions among individuals and organizations. This is based on data from Dries's who sponsors Drupal Development Report. Now, there was something going on in 2020 and 2021. I can't remember exactly what that was, but it might have had a small impact in the availability of resources and people to do some of these things. But we did see some decline in the number, the raw number of individual contributors or organizations contributing. And we saw a little bit at the tail end of 2021 and going into 2022. But we also saw inspiration and movement on the organizational level to begin contributing more to Drupal. On the association side, we focused more efforts on the contribution credit system, on some incentives for contribution, and invited people to be involved in strategic contribution. And so we saw some increase on that side of the table as well. So there's a mixed story to tell. Any other commentary on this data in particular? Or Rachel, anything you would like to say on this front? Okay, sounds good. You know, another metric, which is not a perfect metric, is just about raw activity on Drupal.org. This is going back nearly to the beginning of the history of D.O., and some of this activity was probably spam comments and things like that. So it's not a perfect measure. But we do see that, you know, late 2020, 2021, 2022, we had a little bit of a dip, a valley in the sort of volume of activity going on on Drupal.org. Again, a very rough measure, but followed by the beginning of an upward slope. You can see sort of pretty clearly going in the sort of late 2022 to 23 range, the return of an upward slope. And we want to see that continue. We don't want that to be a blip, I would say, in the trajectory of community activity. But these are some of the things that motivate us to have these conversations, to say that we need to focus on strategic innovation and we need to focus on marketing the community, and on really trying to scale what we do, not just as an association, not just as core maintainers, but as an entire community. To talk about some of the major outcomes that we want to move forward here, we want to harness the collective potential of the community. We want a room full of contributors to be able to deliver on a particular goal. We want to decrease the time of the innovation cycle from two years to land a major future repatch to something measured in weeks or months. We want to focus attention on high value initiatives that are sustainable and competitive in positioning Drupal, and lower the barriers of strategic contribution from the community members who know how the system works to a group of community members at scale who can all do great things. This is very much tied into the allowing those seeds to bloom as Dries put it in his presentation. So to start with, the first question that we want to pose is about the tragedy of the commons, or this conversation of makers and takers that you might remember from Dries' initial presentation. How can we ensure that the makers in our community have a greater share of the opportunity in Drupal and greater motivation to continue? So with that, I think I'll hand it again to Anup first to kick us off and talk a little bit about this problem space and where we think it's going. Yeah, so this is something that Dries has been mentioning in multiple Dries notes in the past, and there is also a very detailed blog post that he has posted in 2019 or so. The fact that a lot of our contributions happen from a very small pool of agencies and collectively agencies and individuals, and collectively all of this pool is a very small part of the big pie that we call Drupal as. And right now, we are all happy that Drupal has grown into the enterprise market, but only a very small fraction of that comes to the agencies who are part of this community, who are makers, who are contributing to the growth of the project and to the community. And for this community to be viable, sustainable and thriving, we would need to ensure that this pool grows and that these agencies are empowered to make more contributions to the project and to the community. This is in short of what this maker-taker problem is, which is a larger share goes to a pool of people who are not having to contribute, which is a cost for those organizations, and a smaller pool coming to a smaller set of agencies and individuals who, having to contribute, have to bear the cost of contribution. And in return, the contributions are being throttled because of the smaller part of the pie that are available to the makers. So what we think should happen is that through some structure, I do not have answers to these questions. We don't necessarily have to answer these up front, but through some mechanisms that we organize ourselves within the community, we make sure that we have a thriving community of individuals and agencies who are also actively contributing to the project and to the community. So this is the broad problem. It's quite abstract, but this is the nature of the problem, and we'll have to tackle it as a community for us to really address some of these ambitious goals that we are setting ourselves up for. Awesome. And Rachel, would you like to speak to this a little bit as well? So talking and making it attractive for people to share is making sure that people know that they have an impact. It's not enough for them to put things in, but they need to feel like they're getting something out, that they have actually been thanked and recognized for doing that effort. We can never forget to do that. It matters. Awesome. And then Adam, you have a unique perspective coming from another open source community and open source project. Within the sort of Red Hat Linux or the Borotter Linux ecosystem, do you want to speak a little bit maybe to how folks think about this problem there, or just a general idea of the make or problem? We'll talk more in later questions. Yeah, I focus a little more on the open shift side of things. So the rel offering is a little outside of what I focus on day to day. But I still interact with a lot of communities around Kubernetes and Argo CD and a lot of cloud native projects. And I think one of the things that really stands out to me is sort of, I would say more of the commercial backing around things. There's each of the projects that we interact with, we may be one of many partners or corporate places that contribute to the broader goals of a project. And we do that all mutually for a greater good through the open source communities. And I think there's a commitment from all of those commercial entities to participate towards that broader good that is already opportunistic because we're all bringing our different perspectives forward and contributing meaningfully towards the same goal. To summarize some of these points, the economic incentives or the economic ecosystem around contribution depends on contributions made by paid for by makers. It's not just that they're they can do them and somehow that's free to them even if it's contributed free to us. But that bench time of their developers that time away from client projects goes towards making Drupal. They're all sharing kind of a portion of the Drupal market that may not be enough to feed that value back, at least in its current form. And so our ability to grow is limited at least in part by our ability to share or grow that portion of the pie. Okay, very cool. Anyone have anything else to add there? Well, actually what I would add is to Rachel's point, once those makers in addition to the economic incentive, once those makers have taken action, having both gratitude and recognition for what it is that they've made is essential to that sort of repeat action. Okay, so the next thing we'd like to do is talk a little bit about a broad outline of a solution, a possibility to address these issues and what we need to do to kind of open the door to more makers and make things happen. We'll talk about this in two parts, both the difficulty of making the contributions, the effort involved in contributing, and then also things like how we invite new folks in and make it viable for them to participate. So I'll start here with some points about opening that door. Some of the key things that again you've seen in other presentations about a ladder of contribution that applies both individually and to organizations. And it's things that we could measure, we could create metrics for that we don't have today. What is the time or effort to a person or organization's first contribution to the community? What is the time and effort required to go from a first contribution of any kind to what we would call a strategic contribution, whether that's a core contribution, a contribution to a strategic initiative or something similar? And then what goes from being an individual contributor to becoming a leader in that space, being able to step up and say, I'm not just going to fix one bug, move one feature request as part of Project Browser Forward, but I'm going to start the next initiative and lead that myself. And so there's a lot of different elements here in this sort of opening the door side. Let's see, who would like to maybe comment on these a little bit first? I'm looking around the room. Adam, please go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I think the best thing to do is to kind of compare Drupal to other projects, right? We don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel, but what are the things specific to Drupal that may be barriers of entry to achieving some of these things much better and much easier? Some things kind of stand out to me. One is it's a fairly large core project, right? It has a lot of gates. It has a lot of process around it to be able to contribute in a meaningful fashion, right? That alone requires a significant amount of investment. I look at some other projects that we work on, especially within my organization, which pretty much only works in open source, by the way. We have paid contributors that are building stuff out, and then we offer that through our platforms that we sell at Red Hat. And when we do these things, they're very discreet, like the projects that we contribute to have very tight problems that they work on, and manageable, non-complex code that you can go in. They have issues that are tagged as beginner. There's people there in rooms to be able to partner with others and kind of mentor and nurture the kind of contribution. So it kind of takes a much different form factor than something like Drupal Core, which has a significant number of projects, a significant number of systems in it, and arguably a lot of different, you know, gates for like definition of done, like automated testing and passing, maintenance, et cetera, et cetera, that require people, right? A lot of human interaction and sort of manual welcoming through each gate as you reach it. 100%. In a very large space of problems, too. Rachel, what are your thoughts on this first part? I was going to say, we actually remember that, you know, Drupal is warmly, very close to the top of the quality part when it comes to being able to do that human interaction through the issues here and so on, really hard, really good at it. In comparison to most other open source projects of any kind of complexity, you know, we really do have good practices. We get it wrong often, but that's okay. As long as we continue to reduce how many times we get it wrong, but we are very good at welcoming people, what we're often doing there is we're welcoming them into an unfamiliar environment as compared to most other open source projects, which leads to a certain level of friction from making that first contribution. So between these two points, we have sort of a sense that maybe we're good at the human side, but maybe that effort that we're so good at is expended on things that are unfamiliar that don't have to be. And if perhaps they were more familiar, that human effort could be spent at higher impact, perhaps. And with that, I think Adam, your point spoke a little bit to what was in Dries' note from Portland, I think it was. They talked a lot about trying to begin moving certain modules out of core, reducing the scope of what is regularly maintained, and talking a little bit about strategic non-core kind of features and concepts that could be highlighted through the project browser, that could be in the recipe, that not everything would have to be in core. Perhaps that would help. Or perhaps that's a good first step on the way to core. Yeah, and I think these points are great. Honestly, I mean, the humans in the community are some of the best people I've ever met in my entire life, quite honestly, right? But I think it's not the humans, it's where the time is going, it's where the investment is, it's can we make it less complex to get to a point where contributing to something meaningfully is extremely easy and simple, and the path is straightforward. Maybe it requires less human intervention, or maybe just a little bit of nurturing to make it happen. I know moving stuff out of core certainly makes the lines of code come down, but I'm not necessarily sure it makes the system less complex. It might be another approach to that could even be moving all of the different subsystems to their own projects that lower and shrink the complexity of one specific part of the system, but then enabling success with just that and focusing on it. Fair enough. And again, we're not posing absolute solutions or certain plans, but really sort of suggesting and throwing out some ideas and we're brainstorming. Yeah, I do. Yeah, I would like to add one small point to that. We are not just talking code level contributions. We are talking contributions of any kind, right? All contributions that are happening within the community. We want more new contributors to come in, and we want all of them to start contributing to both code and non code activities and leading towards significant strategic contributions and all the way to leadership. We want new leadership to also come from the community as we bring on board new people. Yeah, and I think we're talking, we often get sort of a little bit myopically focused on core and feature development as kind of the center of this contribution process, but there's a whole other category that we could be talking about, like bringing Drupal into universities, reinvigorating local associations and also empowering some major and large regional communities to feel like they have a step integrator impact within the kind of global Drupal community. But it's a lot to cover all the ones. So part two of this was inviting people in. We spoke to this a little bit in the introduction, right? How do we grow the share of, frankly, the Drupal revenue that's available to makers in order to give them the benefit of showing their contribution? How can we tie that to community growth and how can we create capacity and shared resources to drive this? And again, we're not proposing a specific solution, but we have some general ideas here. And I don't want to spend too much time because it's flying by pretty quickly in this panel so far. But, Anup, if you'd like to speak a little bit more to this point because I know it's kind of crucial to the point of view and then I'll go on to the rest of our question. Whether it is contribution by an individual or by an agency, it is ultimately time that is being paid for by somebody and that time is being paid for from some value that is already being created through some other activity. And ultimately, if you want more contributions to come in, this financial activity that is actually driving the contribution has to grow within the pool of this maker ecosystem. This is just the math behind it. How we do not know? What we say is that we need more organizations and more individuals to be able to contribute more and that has to be funded through whatever financial growth that is happening within the maker ecosystem. This is the broad thought process. We don't have answers. We are posing the question in front of the community and that we are presenting that this is a broad approach towards solving the problem and the numbers have to connect. If you have to double the contribution, the amount of financial spend towards that contribution has to also double ultimately. Whether I am paying for my own time or whether my company is paying for my time, somebody is paying for it. I have to eat. I have to have my dinner tonight. So this is the point that we are making and that's a broad thought process. We don't have to go deep into it. This has to ultimately come out of the growth of the maker ecosystem within the Drupal community. We do have to recognize that Drupal has a leading mechanism for recognizing and rewarding organizations who contribute the maker organizations. There is nobody doing better than what we already do with the marketplace to specifically recognize and actually reward in many ways the contributions that organizations make and being able to know where they happen. So we have to kind of put ourselves on the back to some degree and recognize that we are already doing a lot of that work. There could be a situation where we have tied up some of the market plays and the contributions to the project and the contributions to the Drupal Association are a bit too close there. These people to see the difference between the two, although the Drupal Association is a very vital part of the overall project. There is a question there around whether it should be more clear where people are contributing, but we are as a project very good at that. Other organizations are very, very impressed with that. I remember being at a conference in Lagos and there was a guy on the stage in Microsoft talking about the Drupal marketplace and how good it was at Stephen Wally. So don't forget that we do that very well already. It doesn't mean that we can continue to improve it. Well, and in that spirit of continuous improvement, we talked about on-ramps into impactful community participation specifically, and I did want to go with you first here, Rachel, to talk about creating better on-ramps and what our thinking is here. You've, I would say, not gone out of your way, but appropriately reminded us of what we are doing well, but where do you think those opportunities are? We need to remember that we don't just type down to it as already being mentioned by I think both of them, and it's not just the code. So many things actually really do have impact in creating the vibrant ecosystem that we have, and just the pure act of using Drupal for your projects has a positive benefit here, has impact. You know, volunteering at events like today, all of the volunteers that are in Pittsburgh today are having impact. All of the mentors that are helping people on Friday to get initial people involved in contributing are having impact, and the actual people, they have for that first time, they're having impact as well. You know, all of these different ways make a difference to the project. It is happening. What we can possibly better do is making sure that people are recognised specifically and called out in all the different places for doing that work. I know that, you know, we're talking about making strategic moves and leads stepping up. I was so impressed with Amy June stepped up from just occasionally doing some mentoring at events and really had, certainly in the last year or two, really driving that forwards, and I keep saying to her, I just stepped up, be strategic, and it's really great to see that people are continuing to do that. It does happen. What we need to be doing is when people do that, especially not the code, call them out, say thank you, get money to make the camp, and continue. You know, even small amounts of cash make a difference. And when you pull the cash together, give it out regularly to people making an impact and get them at the points at which they are starting to make an impact. There's no point, you know, that those people who are already at the top and leading things and really up there, that's great. We need to recognise those that are coming up on the top. Sounds good. Adam, would you speak to this as well about on-ramp specifically to the impactful parts of contribution? And I'll throw this, I'll transition this into our next question as well, which is how do we focus perhaps even specifically towards strategic community initiatives? Yeah, I think we hit on a little bit of this already, right? We have this fantastic talent in the community. If I made a bold claim and said, let's take everybody that knows what they're doing and they do nothing but train other people, what would you, how would you respond? Right? It might be like, oh, well, no, we're going to risk everything that we do, you know, it's going to slow down what we're doing. However, if you slow things down to go faster, would you do that? It might be an investment worth making, right? I think we need to focus on nurturing people. I think we need to actually focus. That is the key word. I don't know, we have a very vibrant, you know, project ecosystem that anybody can contribute anything. But I think if we really are striving to make a dent and have a strategic impact, we have to focus into what is having a strategic impact. I would say that's actually bringing a product mindset to Drupal and saying, hey, where are we behind our competitors? Where can we innovate to make a dent? How will that make a dent? Take calculated bets and actually use that investment wisely, right? And then make the road smooth to get there. Have great documentation, pair up with people, start building that next generation of contributors that are really able to make that impact. Well, speaking of having a product focus, I think we have a newly elevated product manager for Drupal Core in the room. He might be in the room. I think he's here. Thanks, Lowry. Hopefully, this sounds good to you or at least aligns with some of the thinking that you have as well. Great. We got a big thumbs up. So that's set in stone now. That's solved. We fixed it. Very good. Well, let's continue some of this conversation, though. Can I just jump from the end of that? Yes, please. We're talking about strategic community initiatives and strategic initiatives in general. When I used to work in pharmaceuticals, whenever you would have a sort of discovery phase where you've got lots of new molecular entities, sort of chemicals that you're trying out, and you really are trying to discover the ones that are not going to work as soon as you can. That's literally your job is to discover the ones that are not going to be bought, but it's just really early. Now, we need to be clear about that, too. We come up with strategic initiatives, and we do it every year, but at DrupalCon, that's usually where they're announced. I'm presuming some are announced yesterday. I haven't watched it yet. And sometimes we are surprised and maybe even disappointed when some of them do not get the traction in terms of contributors working on them. And we feel disappointed about that. Be excited about that. Be, yes, we've found something that we should drop and not bother with and move on and say, hey, it's a success that we've found something that we cannot find volunteers to work on. Fine, drop it, move on. Work on the things that people are interested in committing their time to. Old statement, but I think one that we should think about more. We do try and do everything for everyone. Earlier, Adam, you talked about how some other projects may do things that Drupal can learn from. And so I did want to talk specifically about tools, practices, processes we should learn from other projects or other communities. Do you have any specifics in mind or general ideas about these that you would like to share? I've talked about a few. I mean, I think one of the things to provide some focus around strategic initiatives is usually they do have corporate backing, right? So you have a sponsor of that. You have people that dedicate their time towards that. And it comes across many different entities that are already sponsoring or contributing. And those folks may hire folks as well and help grow different levels of different engineers that might be able to pitch in or even people contributing in other ways. But I would say the on road needs to be good too, right? There's always opportunities to improve documentation, label issues, specific ways. I think have systems that are promoting automation, right? Be able to kind of contribute something, kick the tires on something, get feedback very immediate or soon. Be coached by somebody that might be there to help support you. There he knows either who's leading that initiative or who's helping spearheaded or very knowledgeable about those systems. I think that's extremely important. The experience of contributing to something is what brings people back, right? And they know they're actually able to have impact. I think what we don't like to see, I think in a lot of the open source stuff that we do, is we don't like ghost contributions, right? Where you can have like, hey, I filed an issue and I submitted a patch and nobody looks at it. Nobody references it. That's a really disempowering thing for somebody, especially someone that might be volunteering their time or even paid by a company to make a contribution, right? I think we need to try to channel some of this corporate energy and some of the corporate partners in very targeted ways to say, hey, you can have this kind of impact by working on this initiative here and we will assure you the road is smooth. We're providing the leadership. We're providing the guidance. We've defined issues very clearly. They align to a plan to deliver this thing and this is how we're getting from point A to point B and we will help you get there. If you can answer those questions, you make the experience something that's great. People come back. They'll come back in their own time. They'll volunteer their time. Do you think that this is in conflict with our sort of collective decision making values in the community or do you think it can be made compatible with the way that we sort of have this broad collective participation sort of duocracy? Can the two be done together? I think you need both, right? You need some sort of organic innovation where people can go find a problem, spin up their own project and kind of help to scale things in organic ways. I look at something like the paragraphs project was kind of a good example. The block system in core might have had a few rough edges or wasn't quite as feature rich as something like the paragraphs ecosystem that now has tons of different modules and everything, but that came up through contributed projects. Where there's one paragraphs module, there's 5,000 other projects that barely have any adoption. There might be amazing contributions to those sort of more niche projects, but they might not be solving as big of a problem or even be catching on quite like some other strategic initiatives that we might want to, especially if we apply a product mindset, right? And Anup, you have direct experience through Zixware in particular of trying to become involved in dedicated strategic contributions even with the help of the DDA and I know for a fact it has not always been easy and not always been successful. And can you speak to your experience of what that friction is and what you would like to see changed? Yeah, so we have had very contrasting experiences on two different instances where one initiative was directly driven by Drupal Association and another was driven by Drupal Association but with involvement from the community. So when there was a decision-making process that was involved and decision had to come from the community, it just, even though I was able to supply the effort, the initiative or the activity just stopped, right? It's just waiting. It has been waiting for a while now. It's been waiting for a few months now, but in a specific case where we have been working for the last month, we were trying to port the announcements module for Drupal 7. We started the work in the beginning of May and the end of May we have the module ready to be committed into Drupal 7 core. There Drupal Association was actively involved in the decision-making process by coordinating and facilitating. So I think there is immense value, right? Just being able to provide the facilitation and the support and the framework, right? To allow contributors to contribute meaningfully, be it at code or in community activities. So I think one of the biggest things that if you have to take away from this session, this is that idea that, hey, we as a community, we have to do this. If we have to grow faster, we have to provide this support for the community and then we have to also actively decide to provide the support and decide to grow. If you do both, we'll do well. Awesome. I'm keeping an eye on time and we've got about 12 minutes and we're not going to get through anywhere near all the questions we prepared. But I do want to make sure we have time for audience participation and some audience questions. I think we'll do one more question here and then start turning it over. We've touched on a lot of these topics, they're interrelated. One is in particular, how do we identify and enable future leaders? I don't know if you saw in the Drupal.org public board meeting, one of the goals under our objectives was to, at the end of the next three years, have 25% of project leadership be new to leadership in the community, new faces. That's not to say 25% of the current number. Ideally, we want to grow the number of leaders and 25% of that new number is new leaders. That's the best way to achieve that goal, 25% or more. But how do we do that? It's often very difficult for someone who perhaps has the potential to lead an initiative, to step up and do more, to feel like they can find permission to do that or feel like there's a door open or a seat at the table open for them to participate in that way. What can we do to change that culture or perhaps just provide the right signposts to something that already exists? I'm going to hop to you again, Rachel, so we're getting your input. You gave an example about Amy June and her efforts in core mentoring. I'll add actually that they're one of the very interesting things about the trees note this year that you'll see when you go back and review it is that there were pitches from many individuals in the community about new innovative areas seeking funding. Among those, Amy June's was one which was seeking to sort of revise the core mentoring materials and the audience voted on these and began to sort of identify some of these things. So I think there's a lot of alignment with what you've been talking about before. But yeah, let me hand it to you. What do you think is the best way to find the next Amy June, the next whoever it might be in our community? There's a lot of people in the room who've been here for 10 years. Very, very much aware. not have to do the leading. I'm quite looking forward to that. Because I know that I have made me sort of cajole and taught them into it and brought them in in some kind of description, but you set up people who are doing amazing things in the core mentoring and it's great. You know, if we can't do it there, then we've got a problem. You know, at least actually actively intending to step aside is kind of weird and horrible. I don't like it, but sort of stepping aside and saying, right, get on with it. And then also convincing them to do the same thing at some point in the future as well and being able to find So it needs to become part of the good practice of leadership. There's some people, I'm doing, it's just an awesome job. You see the issue where she's stepping down from the maintainers and defile currently. It's another awesome issue where a lot of her leadership values are reflected. And so, yeah, I mean literally doing this, it's your job. If you're a leader in the community, this is your job. It's to find people to replace you because nobody wants to do something for it forever. You identify and you enable them by getting them to do more things and making their voice louder, louder than yours, and having a louder voice than me is difficult. I do that. It's true, but speaking of making voices louder, I think we do need to jump into questions as much as we can. We don't have very long, but do folks in the audience want to ask or add to this discussion with any ideas of your own or core problems that we missed? Again, you may be discouraged that there isn't a silver bullet solution, but I don't think you'll be surprised if there was. We would have found it and used it before. Nick, you first. I'm going to super quickly summarize for the recording. The question was, should we scale up even more the amount of product owners and product managers? And also, should we move to a, let's say, consent rather than consensus decision-making process for portions at least of the product roadmap? It's nuanced in my opinion. I would say we want more leaders to be there to steer initiatives to plan the work effectively and to enable people in the process. So if that's part of the responsibilities of a product manager in this context, then yes. What I would say we don't want is we don't want a whole scale of product managers that would go out and throw out even more strategic ideas that we don't have a level of focus around and they don't get acted on. And I think product management is both an art and a science. You have to know where the value is. You need to know why it's important to contribute something. You need to ask yourself the hard questions. You need to look at your competitors. You need to make strategic decisions that make not everything a priority, because if that's the case, then nothing is a priority. So I would say, do we want more product managers? I would say maybe. We need more leaders. We need more people there to help smooth the road, to find the work better, make the why behind a strategic initiative very, very, very clear and crisp and get people recruited and rallied around those ideas to help drive the efficacy of it, right? If you solve that, I think you're good to go. Awesome. Lowry. And again, to repeat for the purposes of the recording, Lowry, you're saying your perspective is, among other things, one of your roles doing product management is in your mind to mentor the initiative coordinators themselves to be asking product focus questions about does this feature need to be in? Is it the MVP? Is it value for Drupal users versus just the, have I gathered people here at the meeting and I'm going through the bullets of updates since last time kind of stuff, more kind of focused existential questions, right? So again, community validation is essential to knowing whether the feature is even valuable in the first place. And you credit the project browsers being a really good example today of something we should replicate. And actually, I think that's a point that, we're near the end here, but Anup, you spoke earlier about being involved in two contribution examples, one which succeeded well and one which languished. And we've just heard project browsers as an example of an initiative that worked very well. I think we can all think of examples of each, of examples of initiatives that were tooth and nail to get across the finish line. And that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. There were hard problems, examples of initiatives that, that languished didn't get, didn't get organized around and examples of initiatives that have gone very smoothly. And perhaps one of our first action items, and it is something we want to do on the DA level is compare these initiatives systematically and thoughtfully and say, right, is there a software development lifecycle analysis of what made that work and that one not? And can we point to the data on how to replicate those things? I think that would be a really good initial step forward at least. Maybe time with Larry, you again, and then I'll take a question from the back. Right. So Larry's other point is how do we make sure this happens not just at DrupalCon? Why, how do we make this happen monthly, bi-weekly, whatever the case may be? And, you know, I'm not going to say I have the immediate answer. I don't think it's any one of our responsibilities, but I think one of the first things we need to do is make sure we talk about this tomorrow during the contribution day and maybe hash out an idea for that. From the back, a question or comment. That's a really big question, to be honest. The question is, where do we think contribution is most needed? And I gathered from the question that that could be based on an industry that most uses Drupal. It could be based around a technological area that we most need to pursue. It's a very good question, but would anyone like to offer a particular opinion before? I can try. I mean, I might ask a different question, right? If you make an initiative, what's the value behind it? And how are you measuring success, right? Because I think sometimes depending on who you speak to and what their role is in the community or you might get a different answer. Some people are like, Hey, I want to solve really complex technical problems and build excellent solutions. Other people like, No, I really want to help grow Drupal and make it really compelling in the field. And so there's different ways you can measure success if you're trying to do that. And I think the answer changes based on the initiative. You know, the question that we need to kind of come back to is, what's the value behind an initiative? Why does it matter? How are you tracking success? How are you saying, Oh, this initiative is important for X, Y and Z reasons. We're going to make an investment here, and we're going to track it by following, you know, these three criteria, right? And if it pays off, it pays off, right? And that's the more product business focused angle on it. But then if you are able to pair that in with some really cool technical ideas that are cutting edge or innovative, right, they kind of rally the troops around, you know, the kinds of problems that they would get to solve. That's really the sweet spot, right? And I'll add to that in a different way. I would say that as a person who works with a very talented Drupal team and gets to interact with the most, you know, talented folks in Drupal at all. I think most of us feel that there's almost no problem on the web that you can't solve with Drupal. The issue is unlocking that capability for the install base for the users who actually have to do that, right? Part of the reason that a focus of the recent product features in my mind is on this ambitious site builder role is to take a lot of capabilities that already exist and make them more accessible to a variety of users regardless of industry. That said, I know the news and print media industry was a huge driver in Drupal 7. There were like major news media organizations involved. I know Pharmaceutical Industry was a huge driver in the workflows initiative. There are these times when various sort of industry major uses come forward and say, here's our primary need and we're going to help put some resources behind it and unify behind it. And I think, again, right now there was so much innovation in the 8, 9 and 10 cycle in terms of like the bones, the fundamental architecture of what Drupal is, but unlocking that capability and making it progressively easier and easier with the next layer of features feels to me like the most fruitful next focus, recognizing that I'm just one voice here. But with that, we are out of, oh, we'll take a last comment since it's the end. Yeah, that's a great question. So the question was in our data about contribution to Drupal that showed an increase in organizational contribution, can we say for sure whether that was to quote gaming the system or legitimate contribution, that specific stat was the total number of organizations contributing rather than necessarily the raw contributions. So we've actually seen a greater number, I think almost 150 more organizations doing at least one contribution. And in that context, even if that contribution was like a sort of novice one or kind of testing the waters to me, that's like top of funnel to be getting them more, more greatly involved. So all right, with that, thank you very much, everyone. We appreciate your participation in such a difficult topic. And thank you to my co presenters.