 So good morning. It's me again. I'm very glad to have to introduce Peter Hinchens He has been he's a long-term Community Activist and on many fronts he fought against software patents. He did like on an organization level and apparently as you know it also succeeded and He's also the main one of the main guys behind zero MQ both developing wise and designing wise He has written books culture and Empire. He probably likes to show it and He's also thinking about apart from developing like Questions about and philosophical questions about systems how to organize them also on the society level but also on the technical level and consulting companies on disability systems and so on and And What we're doing here is that Peter is going to give some Give some input and this is going to be a bit of a different format than the keynotes We saw in the last days in that you are invited Very soon to walk up to the microphones and to enter a discussion So Peter has of course a lot of prepared thoughts, but he's very happy to actually enter some kind of more interactive Discussion and please if you when we do that and try to Restrain yourself to something like 30 seconds think of it like a tweet or something like this Maybe also 60 seconds sometimes if you want to present something more, but please don't go over that and Peter is going to Repeat what he understood from you then and otherwise I think we're going to have an interesting discussion and so I give Word to Peter Thank you Holger. Thank you very much Europe Python you guys are awesome So I'm the zero MQ guy as they call me We it's a tough community. I funded it, but they you know, I made a bad patch and I got this the other day So, you know tough actually this came from a couple of Ruby guys who are not I came to Europe Python It's a funny community the serum community. I've done many Community projects many and it's the first one Large community project where there's no fighting and no arguing and people will argue with me a little bit But in zero MQ community if you look at the mailing list, you won't find flame wars. You won't find people with any kind of emotional Anxiety or this is basically very pragmatic straightforward Walking through what happens and this is this is very unusual in a in a large project Zero MQ is actually a project of projects. I looked at the github organization. There are about 675 projects that use zero MQ the title somewhere in github is about I think 15 the organization It's about half million lines of code With about 400 contributors Okay, it's been about seven years building this up. I give you these figures just to tell you how big it is and how active it is My one of my projects is a C binding that has another 10 languages on top that use it and wrap it I think the D Q O O C O camel CL to of course to Ruby bindings on top. They can ever agree those guys And the Python binding on top of that and the core of zero MQ library is about 33,000 lines of code So it's about 15 17 percent of the whole project And this is a big project. It's successful and yet we don't really argue or fight Also, we don't do design we don't do meetings we don't do IRC meetings We barely have meetups anymore. I used to organize these meetups, you know, like two three weekends Where we discuss what come in the next version we stop doing all of that Now and then we have you know, we have beer It's about it We don't do meetings on IRC. We don't do wish lists. We don't have roadmaps There's barely anyone in charge even I mean, I'm I'm kind of in charge, but I'm mostly busy looking after my kids the back there my three kids I brought them with me to come and see Berlin And you've all been very good with them I was I was kind of a bit afraid what would happen But they've been they've been good. Thanks for that. So This this is a very strange community unusual in many ways and it's not accidental Now this has happened over time We've developed over time a process in a way of working very deliberately to get away from certain problems Now what we do is we solve problems and all of our problems Somehow came from centralization And so the theme of this talk today is about this kind of conflict and fight between Centralization which we as engineers we love, you know, we love the feeling of being God and creating with our brain Something miraculous in you and that requires coercion. It requires power requires control and yet the natural world our economies are Often we live in is about decentralization giving up control If you look at a city like Berlin or London or New York or Brussels or any village even who runs the food the food supply system Well, nobody It's a completely decentralized system I think Berlin has maybe two days worth of food in the pipeline and yet we all eat every day We have lovely ice cream and drinks and it's all magically working and no one is in charge And so our most essential systems are decentralized with nobody in charge And we know from the history of Europe that when someone Organizes a central planning committee the results are disastrous, right? So why do we accept that in our software engineering projects? okay, if you look at the zero MQ community as a kind of a Worked example of this what you will see is a decentralized asynchronous concurrent message-driven lock-free Process with with no one really in charge of it What we came from before was a very conventional single threaded highly locked shared state Very serial not very much concurrently concurrently going on with no message passing process run by a few guys and That's the process that you will know from most of your work and most of your projects a very planned system Possibly a hierarchy with a very clear flow of power from top to bottom flow of orders and executions Most of you and companies you work in will recognize this is your daily environment, right? How many people work in companies and our employees and don't have this model? Well, I see very few hands a few very few and probably you're running your own companies at that point or in charge in some way and When you scale to more than a few friends you'll find that you somehow need this level of coercion so stepping back from controlling what we make Allowing people to compete and make freely Not deciding what the future will bring but allowing you to develop naturally and organically out of problems is It's kind of difficult and yet if you can't do that You know, where's the future now? Let's look at the future of computing specifically We come from a past where computers are very very expensive We all remember IBM's famous market study of 50 mainframes as a global market We go to a future where computers are dirt cheap. They literally cost less than dirt and There's trillions of them and every year the fall, you know the price falls and a number of computers rises And so the future of computing is distributed whether you will like it or not and if as engineers we can't build successful scalable Distributed software we don't have a job in five or ten or twenty years time It's simply a matter of time not of if but of when So as software engineers, which we asking the questions. How do we build? How do we build successful distributed systems? That's the future of our of our industry The answer Apparently and this is my best experience is it's kind of weird the answer is We can't Actually build successful systems. We can only grow them if you look at the Examples that we have of massively successful decentralized systems. They've all been grown organically Apparently without planning the internet is the best example and who built the internet Nobody built it. What is the internet? We don't even know. Where is the internet? It's in the box on my table Don't break it. All right and This mysterious thing it defines our lives and is built by nobody or everybody has grown over time Can anyone tell me what the internet actually is someone give me a one-liner tweet for the internet Let's have our first volunteer the first person to give this a decent answer wins this book right now Okay, and this book is worth it. The microphone is there, sir You have to move to the microphone someone. What is the internet a? Network of autonomous networks now. I like it, but it's not good enough someone else Sorry, I have the microphone. I decide It's just a communication channel. No, not good enough. Sorry. It's it's brave to stand up, but still somebody else the internet the internet You know the answer when I say to you you'll be like, oh, yes, of course Everything that's between computers. It's the sorry Everything that's between computers everything between computers. No, we're not dissatisfied are we? It's a living being it's a living being we're getting very meta here. No come on let's Whoops substrate to the human race Okay, I Substrate I will make it easy. I'll just give you the answer and keep the book for myself. I like my own books The internet is a stack of protocols Okay It's very dry and academic and legal issue and whatever RFCs are the internet the internet are is a stack of RFCs We have now thousands of RFCs. It used to be only a handful a few doesn't the very first RFC RFCs year zero one I Believe is an RFC for writing RFCs or got very close. Maybe number two that is the internet. It's a bunch of contracts What do we think does he get the book? Okay Let's give the gentleman the book or you can come and get it here Okay now the fun thing to note about the internet is that when it was Invented which it wasn't when it was born, which is more accurate. There were very many companies very many large companies with existing similar systems It wasn't like there was nothing and then some guys in a garage said who let's make some networking Come on the biggest companies in the world had spent billions in making networks and this went on as long as Who who was still you guys are all very young ladies and gentlemen, but I remember 1995 and I remember Windows 95 which came out without networking and then they brought networking and they called it msn 1.0 and that was Microsoft's network and It didn't even talk to the internet which they regarded as a second-class thing kind of a gypsy nerd rubbish and MSN 1.0 did not talk the internet and we had AOL we had IBM with their LU 6.2 and all this rubbish It wasn't that the internet came in it in a void It was competing against the largest companies in the world with the biggest budgets and the most brilliant engineers and the most power Right and it destroyed them without even blinking it destroyed them without even thinking about it twice So we're talking here about very significant competitive advantage and everybody whose job It was to build LU 6.2 bridges Had to either learn something else or go on the retirement All right, there was no future in IBM networking or even in novel networking in the end and certainly not an MSN and AOL only because they gave away lots of free CDs and spammed us all for years and the internet The stupid little RFCs became world power. They became a superpower and yet nobody Nobody really invested in that huge amounts of money. There was no one backing it. There was no, you know, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates behind that That should demonstrate to the power of the market when it's enabled by Accurate contracts, which is what RFCs are Okay, and so we've all lived through this Growth of this superpower technology grown By competition and collaboration with actually very few fights and arguments Most of the fights and arguments were from the losers when they discovered they couldn't hijack the process Oh, you can't use our patented email. Oh damn Oh, we can't capture this and this most of the actual honest work was done by any fighting argument at all And so we all know this but we kind of ignored and we come back to the old model of trying to make stuff by power Right. It's very ironic how we can in our minds have these two completely con, you know contradictory models of operation We all depend on the one yet. We all make the other and so Let me throw you one of these a little bit argumentative controversial statements. I like to make about the nature of good software Now all those IBM engineers and even most of the Microsoft engineers and the certain novel engineers all made good software They were all very good programmers They were all, you know, highly selected good degrees in computer science. They all made fantastic You know scalable algorithms and everything else perfect all their stuff was thrown out, right as is most software So what defines good software and I'll argue that most of us in our industry have a completely wrong understanding of that It's one of our biggest weaknesses that we do not understand what quality is in software we fundamentally got it wrong and That wrong assumption drives us to extraordinary mistakes a lot of what we did in the serum Q community was to correct that big misunderstanding what I consider to be a big misunderstanding about software quality and so the old model of Collaboration and serum Q community was I'll explain how it worked. There was a guy who's who was the the main author He was the the main rule author. He would write code be very clever a genius man There was a friend of his who was a main maintainer and he could understand get in branches and merges and packages and make files and auto Confine all this very complex stuff and he could talk to this man here They would the brains would synchronize with this amazing shared state Which involved lots of beer and meetings and strange locations and these two were a very good team made amazingly good software, which was very fast and didn't crash and was Good it was amazing and then there's all these guys here who were like using it and contributing it But the contributions had to go by a mailing list to one of these two guys here Who would then look at the mailing list patches and say we don't like your patch We don't agree with your patch. We think your patch is We don't like it and you know, it's basically it's our baby. So, you know, we don't like it Oh, we'll think about it. Your code's badly indented No, and so there was this very strange communication process based on a pure monopoly of power It was a purely classic very serial single threaded highly blocking Synchronous process based on this fuzzy communication that nobody could ever track No one ever knew what the basis was for a decision. The users had no idea and I think after I had like my fourth or fifth patch rejected and I'm like, why is my stuff being rejected? I'm trying to contribute here. I mean, of course, I felt very hurt and I Cuddled my babies and said this is terrible. But what I really felt was like if I'm getting my stuff rejected. What about other people? this sucks and This was my money in the table. So I was kind of annoyed as well as a businessman and That wasn't the worst part the worst part was that what came out of this process was really rubbish You know, it was really bad. It was it was actually it was actually sad We took us like six months to make a stable release We would spend six months just removing bugs from raw code and we would throw this stuff at users who would say, oh It's better than being stabbed in the eye with a fork But it's really it's really why is this stuff so so raw? Why is it so immature? Why is it so, you know, so much untested code in this code base? Because this guy wrote code. He was a very good engineer. He liked to write code engineers write code and As we went through this kind of process of maturing the code base, we discovered that a lot of the code that was in there was never actually used It was written for no reason except that the person who wrote it thought in his opinion that people might need it one day Or it was fun to write it Or he absolutely had to make it. He was convinced that he had to make it, but he was wrong We often wrong as humans And so what came out again the pipeline and if you look at the first versions of zero mq They're they're kind of embarrassing. I mean, they're very good in certain ways, but they're obviously completely wrong That's why nobody uses them today kind of obvious And over time we've gotten packages and Designs that have emerged which are more and more and more accurate That's why people are using them And the current process is very strange. Basically you you send the pull request to master And I'll merge it and that's it It's it's really that simple. It's not quite that simple. There's a little bit of of filtering of insanity, but not much And even insanity I tend to welcome and embrace it and say if you're really crazy enough to send me Completely insane pull request. I kind of like your your character. Come and join us You know, it's always good to have diversity People who agree with me aren't very useful to me in my projects people who argue with me Are always more valuable. They'll always challenge my perspective and often they'll be right and I'll be wrong in fact And maybe their patch isn't the right patch, but their presence is the right presence And now you get to seeing the software not as a quality in terms of how fast Or how beautiful But in terms of how accurate and how relevant Which is a completely different thing Right one person or a small team can write very high quality software in terms of its technical characteristics But they are incompetent in writing software that is relevant to a broad market And in fact only the market can write that software And so to make successful Large systems you need to bring in successfully the large market to make those systems Okay, and so when you're building software, which has to be distributed Which as I explained the future does demand You need to bring in communities that are distributed. Otherwise you can't build those systems No one's arguing with me here. The microphones are there I should maybe give some diplomatic pauses and that people just stand up and Okay, anytime you like just raise your hands and say peter this stuff you're saying is is is ludicrous You know you've heard of conways law conways law is coming popular It says that as an organization we build systems that mirror our communication patterns in the organization If we are a top-down hierarchy with a very coercive Use of power and a very one-way learning where you learn at university you apply in your job And that's it then the software we make will look like that It'll be very big monolithic hierarchy with the flow of power from top to bottom and basically very fragile over time That's microsoft windows. We know how it how it how it how it works and how it dies If we are a decentralized Organization with nobody really in charge with very strong contracts between different pieces between different layers With a very smooth process for improving those contracts Where the contracts let us compete Very honestly Then what we build in the end is a Self-suffer system based on contracts with nobody really in charge With competition between pieces a very different perspective Gentlemen Holger, I believe just going here because this is not about Moderating I'm just having a question. So What you're describing basically in the process that you established with zero mq Zero mq Sorry, could you repeat the question what you described with the process with zero mq That sounds like a coding wiki right, so basically people contribute code And you look at it and if it doesn't look like Somewhat too crazy or so you you'll merge it. So, um, how how do you make sure that if you release? No, not make sure What is the experience then when you release something in terms of breakage? I mean, how do you deal with tests and things like this like these are practical concerns, right? Okay, so the question is how do you come back to quality in a certain level? What what are what is your testable status for your deliverable? I'll answer the question. I will first I'll first make a comment about what happened when we moved to our process. It was about Two years ago, I believe two and a half years ago And actually my model when I explained to people was wikipedia I said I want to get as close I can to wikipedia and people said peter you're insane and i'm like I might be insane, but I know what i'm talking about with this here My goal is to bring in the most possible contributors and give them the most freedom to make good stuff And when there are mistakes to detect them and fix them as fast as possible. So low latency I don't want six month cycles. I want six hour cycles or six minute cycles and making mistakes is fine It's one of these fallacies of Disputed computing is that the world is perfect, but physics is not perfect. There's always lag There's there's vulnerabilities things break things disappear people make mistakes People make big and small mistakes and the trick is to let people make mistakes to learn from them not to punish them And let them or others detect and fix those mistakes very rapidly wikipedia does this obviously and it's been criticized for decades Well, at least years as being full of trolls and vandals But if you look at it what you see is the very successful accumulation of very accurate knowledge over time more and more and more and more Unstoppably It's never had any real crisis And that's because Although you can vandalize any page You can also fix any vandalization very quickly And so that was my kind of ideal model for the code base was where I could Almost get the master Branches to be production quality almost all the time And that's what we got today And today most of my work is always based off master on on many projects on in the zero community We don't use the stable releases anymore We still make them for customers because customers like that But we get to the point now where the master branch is quality Usable and how do we define usability? And I'm sorry for making you wait, sir How do we define this stuff is reliable trustable? What we do is We let the users of course contribute test cases And the test cases are a contract And when we build and we have travis ci running on this all the time if you if you if you make a change That breaks a test it shows right away and read there's an error this stuff is broken That's not a fatal mistake. It's just a mistake somebody can fix it, but it shows right away So the thing about contracts Contracts by themselves aren't enough the contracts must be testable And the faster and the most the more automatic they can be tested the better This is why rfcs that are protocols can be tested you if you have a web server And you write it and it doesn't perform you can test that with web clients people do this all the time That's how you how you check it so Every patch goes on master gets committed or merged Tests get run If it's broken master we know about it And the test cases have grown and grown and grown and grown as as they were applied systematically as a quality measure They simply grew to cover everything and now they cover the whole api And and that seems to work very well I think you're first sir go for it It's technically I would agree to almost everything you said but somehow I thought I yeah, are you doing a parody? So because we are here on open source conference where we have a dictator for life for lifetime And the same with linux or linux at the first Mr. Toborg was very dominant in the first phase so Maybe this dominance with linux or even now with spicy Is somehow not the best I told I told I talked to people who said that giro did not accept something whatever And the third argument is wikipedia is not a free thing the You can vandalize pages and they are corrected But the problem is some political pages on the hand of left-wing people who have non-democratic views Especially they're against nazis That means against all germans who have a different opinion that left being people. So there is no democracy. You cannot even The points with somebody on wikipedia and he is Killed from the page. So let's take these points one by one So the first point is about the role of a benevolent dictator in a project open source project. The second question is about controversy controversy in in in knowledge and propaganda and so on okay We'll take the second point first The thing about software is that you don't really have controversy in in in perspective and points of view We're not doing journalism. Luckily And I think with wikipedia there is this kind of it covers a very broad scale. It does cover Very old, you know uncontroversal subjects to to journalism And there is always going to be a part of wikipedia, which is extraordinarily controversial If you if you're trying to get a single point of view you cannot at those in those pages However, that controversy has to go somewhere may as well happen May as well be documented And may as well be captured in some place and wikipedia serves for that purpose. It is a real controversy. Let it be documented What we have in the in open source community when we have controversy is people they fork projects and they make competing projects So we let people make five Packages doing the same thing if they're arguing about the approach And then the customers can choose Uh, and effectively you get to the market saying I prefer that perspective. I prefer that point of view and that's fine So we we try to of course, we don't say people should have one point of view Or there should be one single way of doing things or thinking about things When there's die when there's competition of ideas and when there's conflict Let the market decide make many and keep all the freedom to create around that And now you come to the role of the dictator now. I'm I'm I'm Probably the largest contributor to zero mq. I'm still programming all the time But I'm not really the one who wrote it. There was a team that wrote it mostly martin sustek wrote the first the first generations of it My role has mostly been Lawyer it's mostly been writing rfcs and saw problems problem solving so mostly what I've done over the years is Use it write about it and from the perspective of the users solve the problems in the process Rather than trying to push through any design ideology or push through any kind of technical Vision I have no technical vision If I do I put it away. It's mostly junk When I've made projects in the past with lots of technical vision. They were garbage Very fast beautifully documented well written garbage And so When I have technical vision, I'm very skeptical of it And I put it away and I tried to get the market to tell me what to actually make And so I teach people that same process kind of you know modesty, which is hard for me really, but I think holger has something. Oh, no one more question, sir. Go for it. Hi. Is this all? Yes, it is. Hi, um, so Uh This is a sort of a political question rather than a technical one Because we're talking about the way you organize people and resources and where the power flows and things like that and it strikes me that The perspective that you're talking about is um Anarchic and I don't mean that in the we're all going to rip our clothes off and hit each other over the head with a club I mean the political philosophy of anarchy, which is I guess I'd summarize as being The people who should make the decision should be closest to the ones who are actually going to be doing the stuff that affects That is the effect of that decision. So it's a very bottom-up rather than top-down way of doing Organizing things My question then is uh, did that outlook and perhaps I'm wrong In in putting that outlook on you did that outlook Emerge from the bottom or did that start because you thought because that's already an existing perspective that you have And the way zero mq has has developed in in the way that you've described in terms of the way that you uh, the Project is organized. Is that more a reflection of you in your your outlook or the the the group's outlook? I Think the I think in the terms of anarchy is what you call a philosophical anarchy Where there is authority, but anyone can choose the authority they like best So you could model this in terms of you do have countries and governments But you could move to any country you like and they're infinitely big And if you don't like the government and the tax systems and the infrastructure move somewhere else So there is authority and there has to be authority The reason is if you're trying to Work with contracts and base your collaboration around contracts When there's conflict when someone people cheat and people do cheat who enforces the contracts Where's your tribunal? Where's your court? You need a monopoly of power to stop people cheating So an anarchistic system which doesn't take into account that you have a small percentage of determined cheats Determined cheats people who are either predisposed to always cheating. Maybe they're psychopathic by nature and they will always cheat out of Out of out of out of born talent or they will be opportunistic cheats who see money on the table And to say ha ha I can steal the money now. I'll put my morals aside for a few a few days and cheat Those people will be present And they will do great damage to communities like really really serious damage and I've been in communities large communities, which were torn apart by a few cheats Literally destroyed the work of thousands of people and it's it's a terrible thing to see And one of those was like the in our anti patent fight the ffi which I was president of And I was trying to run this organization by consensus and there were a few guys in organization who were determined to cheat And because I didn't really have the moral authority of being the founder. I couldn't tell them to stop And I couldn't convince them to stop and it tore the organization into pieces It was a terrible a terrible thing. So I'm very pragmatic about identifying sources of conflict and sources of damage to other people's work And stopping that by any means necessary Including real violence if I have to I'll be very brutal to people I consider to be a threat to people I consider to be valuable to each other, right So it's not anarchism in the sense of hey, let's all do what we like That doesn't work in my experience But the authority is there to protect Not to not to attack and it's there to protect the work of the collective If you look at this read my book, which you should the book is very good. I like the book And The book came out of my my work in politics and my work to organize people for politics And I was trying to explain this to others how to organize and how to build communities for political ends And my sister who's a who's a professor in political science says, oh, you're a marxist. I always knew you're a marxist I'm not a marxist. I'm a free market. You know on the I'm a free marxist I'm an adam smith, you know, I believe in the free market and the beauty of the market. She's like, I know you're a marxist Yeah, my brother's a marxist Like, okay, I'm a marxist. So I didn't grow up to be a marxist. I consider myself to be right-wing capitalist I'm a businessman like to make money But it turns out the best way to make money is to make many people happy And it turns out that requires You know a good efficient market with good rules and with, you know, good authority and we come to certain forms of anarchism No, I didn't invent these words. So It's funny that you just mentioned that you believe in the adam smith theory about Invisible and because I think what you're missing in Your view is that behind power there is people and I want to ask how many women is in this room right now Because we have to fight our way in it and we have to justify how We are doing that and because I was in the Django girls project I don't know. I don't know how it was between them in the Python society how it's worked For a woman to express the point of view but in France somebody tried to do something like that and was throw out So I think you are missing that in this room. There are many male white for most And that behind power there is people and there is this Maybe you think that you don't have any oriented view or stuff like that But you you are in fact oriented and when you choose to Have people like doing Funny codes You choose to have this guy, but maybe it's a threat for others. So maybe you are missing that behind powers. There's people So thank you for your question. I guess to paraphrase what you're asking for is how this kind of I guess a fairly pragmatic process takes to into account diversity Whether it be diversity of of origin or gender or religion or culture, whatever Um, I'm not going to talk about women in software. That's a different issue and so my expertise. I'm a white man I have I cannot talk about diversity very much. I grew up in many countries My I think my mother language when I was young was Swahili as much as it was English My wife is Congolese. I know about culture diversity But I can't talk for for women what I can talk about is the The work we've done to remove the preconceptions that filter out contributions and I don't know how successful it's been but a lot of the The bias that people might have towards a contributor because they know who they are You're my friend. Therefore. I like your patches. I don't know who you are. Therefore. I reject them. We've taken away If you look at our process, there is No basis for discrimination In the process. However, what I've also noticed is that our contributors are more and more Dominantly male not from any one country. Um, we're very Around the world a very geographically diverse But I believe the process is a fairly brutal process in certain ways fairly competitive and May have a certain communication pattern that feels pretty masculine. That's possible I if that's the case, and I'm I'm happy to get patches and changes and suggestions When it comes to the people in the the invisible hand in the market What I think is is is observable But I think the basis for economics is is that We make money. We make a market by specializing and by trading That's to say that diversity doesn't have to mean we all do the same thing We can do many different things and work together and having Different talents in our minds Makes us valuable Right Let's just say difference is valuable difference is what makes us valuable as individuals being different from the people is a valuable thing It should be a valuable thing if we are free to use that difference to trade To connect to people if there's no barriers to communication or barriers to moving to different places to work, whatever But more than that. I can't really I can't really give it funny that you say that you are you have no bias But when wikipedia made a survey Most of the males say there is no sexism and you are the woman and all the women say yeah, there is sexism So it's funny that you say that there is no bias. I mean, of course, I'm biased I know I'm biased by definition, but I can't see my own bias I couldn't tell you where it is I feel that I grew up in I have four sisters and I grew up in a family where we were we were You know But of course I'm biased But everybody in this room is biased in different ways The no one on earth is not biased by their own perception of the world And I don't even I suspect that gender bias isn't even the largest bias We have age bias. We have language bias. We have so many biases So, you know, that's that's kind of the reality we live in I don't know how to make that into you know more happiness for people Except to make more doors open and more opportunity for people to contribute in different ways Yeah But thank you for that question Okay, so this is the two last questions We have Five minutes left and we have to close, right? Okay, okay He started first He came first Okay, okay My question You said you thought positively about the market deciding about their own software And not one person making all the decisions I want to quote I want to say a quote from the book The Shallows The brighter the system the dommier the user You think when the people decide about their software, will they always choose the best software for their own benefit? So what's interesting about we're talking about the ability of the market to make decisions Yes, and what I think is most interesting is not so much about the solution For a particular problem There are many solutions for problems and we can always move around and change solutions. What's most interesting? And what's most valuable and what defines come back to quality and software Is choosing the right problems And solving the right problems And solving the biggest problems first Now once you've identified the right problem to solve Of course, you can throw away solutions come with new solutions And what we really depend on on on our community for what we what we bet on the community Is to identify the right problems and the biggest problems and those we solve And then the solutions can come and go over time. They're basically much trash Right Okay, does that answer your question? Well to a certain extent maybe I can say it in a more concrete terms Like when people choose the system that is most easy and most that thinks beyond there we have So for example, if ease of use is more important in performance, that's that's a valid choice I mean everyone is making a bet on their own when they choose software They're betting their time and money on that And of course that's valid. You can't say no, no, I know better than you but that's your business But I know better than you that that's that doesn't work So just the code was about that their brains will will function less over time. That was the Negative things that they may choose. Okay. Thank you Yes, hello everybody Yes, I'm listening to you and my feeling is that we just compare two times of management and directive management and Participate with management and my question is quite easy Is it not just a question of resources? I mean when we speak about linux, it was the beginning You have to you have few resources and then you have to To go or not to go straight on and It was not so easy to to to have Enough resources to to just to to listen to the market because the market was just at the beginning When we are now at that time in Today So the community are much larger and for that reason resources is much easier to to to bring and For projects, it's much easier to have a participative Management now, okay So the question is whether this is a different management styles Yes or no and whether it's a question of size or not There is a management consultant a long time ago a guy called argeris He has two models you can research this argeris model one argeris model two And it's worth reading about and this is exactly the the dichotomy model one is a top-down learning process You learn university you learn in workshops you apply in your job And model two is a circular system where you learn as you work and you apply that all the way around It's not about scale though Those models apply whether you're a team of five or five thousand both models They're quite inconsistent. You can't make a shift from one to the other very easily. They they're competing models But there are two management styles. Yes most definitely and it's it's not my invention I mean no one invents anything we just reuse stuff or we discover the stuff that people have been doing for a long time There are companies which operate on model two Very successfully and internally they are very fluid and they look very strange, but they're very successful And most companies still operate on model one Okay, but it's not about size when I began making the community with serum q the goal was from the very beginning was to build this kind of A learning, you know building by learning rather than building by by dogma and by design Just a remark. I think it's not only the human resources, but key resources key resources I think we have to finish there. I'm sorry. I mean peter is also going to be around afterwards So there's a discussion one last 20 second We are half convinced here that this Decentralized organization works. I mean get it decentralized. We do have contracts through conflicts the kind of things who are all for there I was listening to you and I was thinking this guy needs to go to this big economic forum in the alp Where bill gates used to go and all the big leaders Did go because the people in power right now they need to hear you And then they don't and I don't want to talk to them. I mean you're the people I want to talk to nobody else Okay They can read my book I have a few copies for sale if you want some I'll sign them. Thank you all very much for being here today Thank you