BraindumpDiscussion on Architecture Recommendations for Telkom Project
Summary:
- The need for a deep dive session on architecture recommendations regarding EcoGenie was emphasized.
- Concerns were raised about the inadequacy of the current integration architecture for customer experience.
- A reliance on an integration-based architecture instead of APIs was highlighted as a significant issue.
- Recommendations are needed for architecture changes based on a transition to Huawei systems.
- Integration risks and documentation deficiencies were discussed, particularly about customer journeys.
- The importance of cohesive architecture across business units was underlined.
Content:
Back to the draft reporting presented in a week later, I expect the final report to be presented to Telkom, right? So outstanding for me is still architecture clover. So I still need to get some deep dive and understanding. I need a session later this week once you've got the EcoGenie output for us to review the architecture side and firm up the recommendations that need to be done on that space, right? What you see in the reports I sent out is just based on the interviews, etc. It's not based on any deep analysis of the documents, etc., which I expect you guys to give feedback on.
So can we agree that that is one area that we will try and finalize before the end of this week? Yeah, sure. I think I need to maybe understand more what you want in terms of deeper architecture, but yes, I mean, we have time to dig into that. Yeah, what I'm looking for is assessment of the architecture, what are the changes you think need to be made? You know, what do you think they should be thinking of refactoring or retiring based on what their roadmap is, etc., given it's going the Huawei route. So a set of recommendations that we can review and then we can look at it and say, OK, this is what we think we should do.
OK. So it will be something we discuss and then, you know, finalize in terms of a recommendation. OK. Then the second thing is that I do need you guys to put some attention on a proposed integration architecture. Because I think the integration architecture is messed up. If you look at even what they're doing in the front end for back end, it still doesn't include capabilities of customer experience, etc., etc., right? Digital experience. So they do need to evolve that layer. You know, what is happening in that current layer is not sufficient for them to deliver a full customer digital experience.
Yes, we all agree with that. We had the discussion earlier this morning and that was the same. We all agree that there is a big issue there. Yeah. And then the second is the integration. You know, there still seems to be, because it's internal systems, there seems to be very heavy reliance on using an integration-based architecture and not an API-based architecture. So, you know, what should be the principles guiding when it's APIs, when it's integration, when it's mobile? I think what I see is very little desire to move. They've got a gateway project, but I'm not seeing ownership to drive the proliferation of APIs from a Telkom ownership standpoint.
They're expecting vendors to deliver. But at the end of the day, how are you going to bring the cohesion between vendors and different vendors when they have to expose APIs to each other? That has to be owned by Telkom. It cannot be owned by the vendors. You know, in things like what the payloads should include, etc., etc., because I don't think that they're paying enough attention to building an API capability that will drive what I call performance. I don't know if I'm talking nonsense here or you guys get what I'm saying. No, no, no. Because what I said this morning is, and this is what the whole EcoGenie output is giving us, and I think ObiIndem is going to add more, but the Huawei BSS migration is moving the core environment to a converged system of which, from which they can get a lot of benefits.
But I don't see a good plan of how to realize that into a digital experience, into the customer. That's not there. That's the one. And the second is the integration framework for Huawei versus other systems that still stay, right? The backend to frontend evolution, the digital ecosystem evolution, you know, how do they drive journey orchestration, workflow? That's not a Huawei thing. That's something that they have to take ownership for. Yes, yes. And the best comment I have was that discussion on the integration, Lauter, Andre. And you were saying that Huawei is giving him SOAP integration and they're going to get later API one.
That needs to be raised as an issue. So all that they see as a phase 1.2, but there's no plan of how they're going to re-engineer that. That's, that's to them a future issue. Those need to be highlighted as risks that need to be addressed. Yes, I agree. We're not going to, you know, I've done an assessment which shows that Huawei doesn't resolve all the issues. However, that's something that we work with Huawei on. We're not telling them to replace Huawei. Technically, we'll defend where they can play a role. But essentially what we're saying is that we highlight to you that these are things you need to focus on with Huawei and ensure that as we go into subsequent phases of this project, these issues are dealt with and addressed.
These are all recommendations. There's nothing we tell them, right? They have to make a decision on whether it applies or not. So those are the things I'm looking at, you know, a bit more tighter recommendations around the integration layer, including the APIs, the experience layer, and then the to-be, as-is versus to-be architecture. And that as-is to-be must also look at integrations beyond the boundaries of Telkom consumer and SMB. It must go beyond SMB into BCX where required and into OpenServe. And what should those interfaces look like? That's also a current weakness, I think. Yes. Yeah, I think we're seeing the same thing.
There's not a point. So I want that to come out as recommendations from EcoGenie or wherever, you know, post-EcoGenie that we can then put into a complete architecture section. Yes. I think most of... I don't think there's anything else. I've shared some information on the shared drive on SharePoint. Is there any other thing that's glaring at you guys that we need to talk about or get more clarity on? But I am looking at maybe by the 17th closing the draft report. The only changes I want to make to the draft report after the 17th will be feedback coming from Dr. Nos and Mpho that go into the final report.
Final report will invite almost everyone for which will be on Monday. And we will, I'm hoping to do the final report on Wednesday with the CEO and close the project at that point on the 20th, the day before the leadership conference. So those are the timelines we're working towards. Jacob? Okay. Yeah, no, I 100% agree. I think you touched on all of that, Jyoti. The nice thing for me is this morning we all sat and got the first outputs from EcoGenie. And it pretty much highlighted everything you just said. So Grobe is busy reviewing. You see how many EcoGenies sitting in a human head.
We need to import you into Genie. I just found the genie inside EcoGenie. You can find a way to digitize me. I'm just joking. I love that. Yeah, so those outputs should come soon for you to start reviewing as well. I think we should be checking on the business architecture. So if EcoGenie pushes anything on that architecture is built without a business architecture. Just make sure that what you frame is framed more as recommendations and not as criticisms because these guys are very sensitive. You saw what she did on the transformation document. Yes. Yes. Gervis mentioned it this morning.
No, no, the transformation one has changed after the last conversation. Gervis, you know the workshop you had? Yes. I took that input and then fed that in as well, and it did take the transformation number up. Yes, yes. So it's good. I think it took it up because it was an area we didn't really cover, and now it's there and now it's processing it. Yeah, yeah. So what I've constantly done is as we update different conversations, I keep going back and saying, which are the conversations are dependent? And I go back and I get my AI tool to say, okay, now that you've got this new information, does it change the scoring?
Yes. But they, you know, across the board, they're looking at it moving towards three, and they told that should be a three and a half and four. Yeah. Yeah. In capability. Yeah. Yeah. So SMB also, we got some information, but I sent some additional information on the target architecture, et cetera, for SMB. What's the prioritization, et cetera, and then how do they plan to do, as part of the transformation, what is their thoughts around integration to PCF required and to open serve required? You know, the thinking is not pervaded by the concept of the one telco.
It's still very much line of business kind of focus, and they're losing synergies and they're incurring costs because of this fragmented approach. Yeah, they, I think they went for the split in the BUs, and the thinking is now... The BUs can be split, but there's no reason why the architecture and the application portfolio cannot be a cohesive one. No, but it immediately, when they split the BUs, it became boundaries, and now everybody's defending the boundaries. That's what we see. Yeah, I mean, in our days when there was no business, the architecture was always driven by having a single architecture across the different lines of business, and consumer was the first one we did.
Then it was Matic, which was more on enterprise system, if you remember, Kerviz. Yes. We never had the intention to go separate. And in those days, the architectures were still monolithic. Today, in a composable architecture, you can do a lot more in terms of consolidating your specs. So what I'm missing from that view is that there's no, let's call it, service contract that runs across the boundaries to, like, open serve to say, this is how long it will take, and you will give me feedback, and what's the SLA. I don't see any contracts that are... But those are the recommendations that need to come out to say that there are interfaces, there are dependencies, there are many manual processes, there are many handovers that don't get tracked.
Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to have a series of OKRs, operational key result areas, or SLAs that define the operations between these, if that split architecture is what they're going to continue with. Yeah. So that's what I'm expecting, a set of solid recommendations that highlight these type of things. So what you can do is a slide deck coming on architecture, and then I'll look at how I incorporate that into the presentation. I think they are very weak on architecture. I don't know what Avi's feeling is. But they've got people, like, what's her name?
Serena. Serena. Yeah, but she doesn't seem to be very practical. Correct. Spot on. I don't know if this is an issue from previous or if it's just a new thing. No, it's always been like that. I've known her for about 30 years. She was out of Telkom. She had her own training company doing TOGAF training, and then she went back to Telkom. And her side is perfect because it's always the theoretical side, but in Telkom, the implementation is totally different. Yeah, but I also don't see, you know, what I don't see from her in there, they're not putting high value in terms of API conformance and the older architecture.
So, again, what I see is they're really going down a separatist path. Like, you know, they're still dreaming of the, you know, they're still working on the presumption of the great Telcom that was, you know, 20, 30 years ago, with unlimited resources to do everything. Yep. And they don't have... I think they're not realizing that, you know, it's not about unlimited resources anymore. So, based on this, right, I guess at this point in time, the only thing we're going to do is obviously do the results of the assessment, right? But in terms of, you know, how can we support them in the next... That's the other section I want from you.
How could we bring value to Telcom? You know, we've been in the architecture practice for other areas. So, you need to work through that, Ashita. Maybe you need to lead that. Then the third thing we need to ensure, Kobus, is there any documentation on their SharePoint that we have overlooked or missed out? I can look again. Correct, correct. I did go through probably everything. And I did get a lot out of that from the whole BSS future framework, I mean, came out of this stuff. Yeah, but we didn't get very detailed customer journeys and stuff, which is what I was hoping to see.
But it doesn't matter. I mean, the journeys are pretty broken at the moment anyway. They don't exist because they're telling me all the time that the project is like three months old, if you see the presentations. But this is why you need to... One of the recommendations need to be also a journey-based design approach, you know, to this. And that feels key. And then Ashita, when you see how much value we can add, you can talk through some of the projects that we've done in architecture, digital transformation, et cetera. Yeah. Because I guess from an architecture perspective, we can obviously make a pitch, right?
And I guess that's something we want to do. But it's probably not the only thing we want to do with them, right? No, I think there's more we can do. Think about our journey to get to services. Exactly. When can we do a quick check on that? Can we do something on Thursday and then Friday try and see if we can get it into the next draft or something? Yeah, I think we can do that. That's a good one. So Joti, we discussed some of those this morning as well. Yes. And Avi and I thought what would be nice is what we proposed to MTN SA for the transformation was to do SI assurance, right?
But then we asked, and they said they have execution support partners, which is Deloitte. Yeah. So that's not going to work. We can talk about helping in the project office in the analytics side, the architecture definition, et cetera. And in Avi's very excited... Yeah, in the data area. So I think we can also think about it, right, in terms of how we position ourselves, like we said, right, on kind of focusing on the journeys as well. So, you know, we're... Exactly. So we're approaching it, you know, in terms of being a partner to them, not from an integration perspective, but more from a business perspective, right, in terms of those guiding principles, in terms of how do they harness the best value out of this entire exercise.
Agreed. I think we need to review that and then see what we firm up. But my view is that, again, you know, even the CIO operates at a very academic level. So it's going to create a lot... I think same with him before, she's not that helpful. Yes, yes. You hear that, right? And I guess that's why she wanted to have that extended meeting today, because she wants to figure out what are then those details that she can obviously pick up. Yeah, so I said, we sent them the two decks. I sent, you know, copied all you guys, the two of you on, and it's in the shared folder.
I think if it's not there, let me know. And then let's see where it goes today. And then next week will be, next week will be the draft final, and then the final the week after. But I do want to close this in seven weeks. I don't want to go beyond that, because it kept us hanging a lot during the first two weeks. And we're trying to get this project off the ground in from May. So I don't want to extend it more than necessary. But I think that they did set up meetings already, right?
So he's done it for the 17th and... Yeah, but I set one up for the final report with Dr. Knox for Wednesday. I said, then when are we presenting to Lunga? Because I want to close the project that week. So now he's moved to Monday, which I'll send the invitation out. And we'll probably do Lunga on Wednesday and then close off the project based on that on at least the consumer and SMB side. I think that's it. Okay, thanks everyone. Thank you so much, guys. Thank you. Bye. Yes. Good, good. Thank you. How are you doing?
I'm good, thanks. Are you out of your... Much, much better. Although this morning is quite cold. Yes. A bit chilly. Yes, yes, yes, yes. I went to go stand in the sun for a few minutes just now, but anyways. What I was calling about was, obviously you guys had the conversation this morning, right? And I was not there. So I just wanted to check. So when I was making notes now, I obviously talked about, I mean, I'm obviously considering EA, right?
- The need for a deep dive session on architecture recommendations regarding EcoGenie was emphasized.
- Concerns were raised about the inadequacy of the current integration architecture for customer experience.
- A reliance on an integration-based architecture instead of APIs was highlighted as a significant issue.
- Recommendations are needed for architecture changes based on a transition to Huawei systems.
- Integration risks and documentation deficiencies were discussed, particularly about customer journeys.
- The importance of cohesive architecture across business units was underlined.
Content:
Back to the draft reporting presented in a week later, I expect the final report to be presented to Telkom, right? So outstanding for me is still architecture clover. So I still need to get some deep dive and understanding. I need a session later this week once you've got the EcoGenie output for us to review the architecture side and firm up the recommendations that need to be done on that space, right? What you see in the reports I sent out is just based on the interviews, etc. It's not based on any deep analysis of the documents, etc., which I expect you guys to give feedback on.
So can we agree that that is one area that we will try and finalize before the end of this week? Yeah, sure. I think I need to maybe understand more what you want in terms of deeper architecture, but yes, I mean, we have time to dig into that. Yeah, what I'm looking for is assessment of the architecture, what are the changes you think need to be made? You know, what do you think they should be thinking of refactoring or retiring based on what their roadmap is, etc., given it's going the Huawei route. So a set of recommendations that we can review and then we can look at it and say, OK, this is what we think we should do.
OK. So it will be something we discuss and then, you know, finalize in terms of a recommendation. OK. Then the second thing is that I do need you guys to put some attention on a proposed integration architecture. Because I think the integration architecture is messed up. If you look at even what they're doing in the front end for back end, it still doesn't include capabilities of customer experience, etc., etc., right? Digital experience. So they do need to evolve that layer. You know, what is happening in that current layer is not sufficient for them to deliver a full customer digital experience.
Yes, we all agree with that. We had the discussion earlier this morning and that was the same. We all agree that there is a big issue there. Yeah. And then the second is the integration. You know, there still seems to be, because it's internal systems, there seems to be very heavy reliance on using an integration-based architecture and not an API-based architecture. So, you know, what should be the principles guiding when it's APIs, when it's integration, when it's mobile? I think what I see is very little desire to move. They've got a gateway project, but I'm not seeing ownership to drive the proliferation of APIs from a Telkom ownership standpoint.
They're expecting vendors to deliver. But at the end of the day, how are you going to bring the cohesion between vendors and different vendors when they have to expose APIs to each other? That has to be owned by Telkom. It cannot be owned by the vendors. You know, in things like what the payloads should include, etc., etc., because I don't think that they're paying enough attention to building an API capability that will drive what I call performance. I don't know if I'm talking nonsense here or you guys get what I'm saying. No, no, no. Because what I said this morning is, and this is what the whole EcoGenie output is giving us, and I think ObiIndem is going to add more, but the Huawei BSS migration is moving the core environment to a converged system of which, from which they can get a lot of benefits.
But I don't see a good plan of how to realize that into a digital experience, into the customer. That's not there. That's the one. And the second is the integration framework for Huawei versus other systems that still stay, right? The backend to frontend evolution, the digital ecosystem evolution, you know, how do they drive journey orchestration, workflow? That's not a Huawei thing. That's something that they have to take ownership for. Yes, yes. And the best comment I have was that discussion on the integration, Lauter, Andre. And you were saying that Huawei is giving him SOAP integration and they're going to get later API one.
That needs to be raised as an issue. So all that they see as a phase 1.2, but there's no plan of how they're going to re-engineer that. That's, that's to them a future issue. Those need to be highlighted as risks that need to be addressed. Yes, I agree. We're not going to, you know, I've done an assessment which shows that Huawei doesn't resolve all the issues. However, that's something that we work with Huawei on. We're not telling them to replace Huawei. Technically, we'll defend where they can play a role. But essentially what we're saying is that we highlight to you that these are things you need to focus on with Huawei and ensure that as we go into subsequent phases of this project, these issues are dealt with and addressed.
These are all recommendations. There's nothing we tell them, right? They have to make a decision on whether it applies or not. So those are the things I'm looking at, you know, a bit more tighter recommendations around the integration layer, including the APIs, the experience layer, and then the to-be, as-is versus to-be architecture. And that as-is to-be must also look at integrations beyond the boundaries of Telkom consumer and SMB. It must go beyond SMB into BCX where required and into OpenServe. And what should those interfaces look like? That's also a current weakness, I think. Yes. Yeah, I think we're seeing the same thing.
There's not a point. So I want that to come out as recommendations from EcoGenie or wherever, you know, post-EcoGenie that we can then put into a complete architecture section. Yes. I think most of... I don't think there's anything else. I've shared some information on the shared drive on SharePoint. Is there any other thing that's glaring at you guys that we need to talk about or get more clarity on? But I am looking at maybe by the 17th closing the draft report. The only changes I want to make to the draft report after the 17th will be feedback coming from Dr. Nos and Mpho that go into the final report.
Final report will invite almost everyone for which will be on Monday. And we will, I'm hoping to do the final report on Wednesday with the CEO and close the project at that point on the 20th, the day before the leadership conference. So those are the timelines we're working towards. Jacob? Okay. Yeah, no, I 100% agree. I think you touched on all of that, Jyoti. The nice thing for me is this morning we all sat and got the first outputs from EcoGenie. And it pretty much highlighted everything you just said. So Grobe is busy reviewing. You see how many EcoGenies sitting in a human head.
We need to import you into Genie. I just found the genie inside EcoGenie. You can find a way to digitize me. I'm just joking. I love that. Yeah, so those outputs should come soon for you to start reviewing as well. I think we should be checking on the business architecture. So if EcoGenie pushes anything on that architecture is built without a business architecture. Just make sure that what you frame is framed more as recommendations and not as criticisms because these guys are very sensitive. You saw what she did on the transformation document. Yes. Yes. Gervis mentioned it this morning.
No, no, the transformation one has changed after the last conversation. Gervis, you know the workshop you had? Yes. I took that input and then fed that in as well, and it did take the transformation number up. Yes, yes. So it's good. I think it took it up because it was an area we didn't really cover, and now it's there and now it's processing it. Yeah, yeah. So what I've constantly done is as we update different conversations, I keep going back and saying, which are the conversations are dependent? And I go back and I get my AI tool to say, okay, now that you've got this new information, does it change the scoring?
Yes. But they, you know, across the board, they're looking at it moving towards three, and they told that should be a three and a half and four. Yeah. Yeah. In capability. Yeah. Yeah. So SMB also, we got some information, but I sent some additional information on the target architecture, et cetera, for SMB. What's the prioritization, et cetera, and then how do they plan to do, as part of the transformation, what is their thoughts around integration to PCF required and to open serve required? You know, the thinking is not pervaded by the concept of the one telco.
It's still very much line of business kind of focus, and they're losing synergies and they're incurring costs because of this fragmented approach. Yeah, they, I think they went for the split in the BUs, and the thinking is now... The BUs can be split, but there's no reason why the architecture and the application portfolio cannot be a cohesive one. No, but it immediately, when they split the BUs, it became boundaries, and now everybody's defending the boundaries. That's what we see. Yeah, I mean, in our days when there was no business, the architecture was always driven by having a single architecture across the different lines of business, and consumer was the first one we did.
Then it was Matic, which was more on enterprise system, if you remember, Kerviz. Yes. We never had the intention to go separate. And in those days, the architectures were still monolithic. Today, in a composable architecture, you can do a lot more in terms of consolidating your specs. So what I'm missing from that view is that there's no, let's call it, service contract that runs across the boundaries to, like, open serve to say, this is how long it will take, and you will give me feedback, and what's the SLA. I don't see any contracts that are... But those are the recommendations that need to come out to say that there are interfaces, there are dependencies, there are many manual processes, there are many handovers that don't get tracked.
Therefore, it makes a lot of sense to have a series of OKRs, operational key result areas, or SLAs that define the operations between these, if that split architecture is what they're going to continue with. Yeah. So that's what I'm expecting, a set of solid recommendations that highlight these type of things. So what you can do is a slide deck coming on architecture, and then I'll look at how I incorporate that into the presentation. I think they are very weak on architecture. I don't know what Avi's feeling is. But they've got people, like, what's her name?
Serena. Serena. Yeah, but she doesn't seem to be very practical. Correct. Spot on. I don't know if this is an issue from previous or if it's just a new thing. No, it's always been like that. I've known her for about 30 years. She was out of Telkom. She had her own training company doing TOGAF training, and then she went back to Telkom. And her side is perfect because it's always the theoretical side, but in Telkom, the implementation is totally different. Yeah, but I also don't see, you know, what I don't see from her in there, they're not putting high value in terms of API conformance and the older architecture.
So, again, what I see is they're really going down a separatist path. Like, you know, they're still dreaming of the, you know, they're still working on the presumption of the great Telcom that was, you know, 20, 30 years ago, with unlimited resources to do everything. Yep. And they don't have... I think they're not realizing that, you know, it's not about unlimited resources anymore. So, based on this, right, I guess at this point in time, the only thing we're going to do is obviously do the results of the assessment, right? But in terms of, you know, how can we support them in the next... That's the other section I want from you.
How could we bring value to Telcom? You know, we've been in the architecture practice for other areas. So, you need to work through that, Ashita. Maybe you need to lead that. Then the third thing we need to ensure, Kobus, is there any documentation on their SharePoint that we have overlooked or missed out? I can look again. Correct, correct. I did go through probably everything. And I did get a lot out of that from the whole BSS future framework, I mean, came out of this stuff. Yeah, but we didn't get very detailed customer journeys and stuff, which is what I was hoping to see.
But it doesn't matter. I mean, the journeys are pretty broken at the moment anyway. They don't exist because they're telling me all the time that the project is like three months old, if you see the presentations. But this is why you need to... One of the recommendations need to be also a journey-based design approach, you know, to this. And that feels key. And then Ashita, when you see how much value we can add, you can talk through some of the projects that we've done in architecture, digital transformation, et cetera. Yeah. Because I guess from an architecture perspective, we can obviously make a pitch, right?
And I guess that's something we want to do. But it's probably not the only thing we want to do with them, right? No, I think there's more we can do. Think about our journey to get to services. Exactly. When can we do a quick check on that? Can we do something on Thursday and then Friday try and see if we can get it into the next draft or something? Yeah, I think we can do that. That's a good one. So Joti, we discussed some of those this morning as well. Yes. And Avi and I thought what would be nice is what we proposed to MTN SA for the transformation was to do SI assurance, right?
But then we asked, and they said they have execution support partners, which is Deloitte. Yeah. So that's not going to work. We can talk about helping in the project office in the analytics side, the architecture definition, et cetera. And in Avi's very excited... Yeah, in the data area. So I think we can also think about it, right, in terms of how we position ourselves, like we said, right, on kind of focusing on the journeys as well. So, you know, we're... Exactly. So we're approaching it, you know, in terms of being a partner to them, not from an integration perspective, but more from a business perspective, right, in terms of those guiding principles, in terms of how do they harness the best value out of this entire exercise.
Agreed. I think we need to review that and then see what we firm up. But my view is that, again, you know, even the CIO operates at a very academic level. So it's going to create a lot... I think same with him before, she's not that helpful. Yes, yes. You hear that, right? And I guess that's why she wanted to have that extended meeting today, because she wants to figure out what are then those details that she can obviously pick up. Yeah, so I said, we sent them the two decks. I sent, you know, copied all you guys, the two of you on, and it's in the shared folder.
I think if it's not there, let me know. And then let's see where it goes today. And then next week will be, next week will be the draft final, and then the final the week after. But I do want to close this in seven weeks. I don't want to go beyond that, because it kept us hanging a lot during the first two weeks. And we're trying to get this project off the ground in from May. So I don't want to extend it more than necessary. But I think that they did set up meetings already, right?
So he's done it for the 17th and... Yeah, but I set one up for the final report with Dr. Knox for Wednesday. I said, then when are we presenting to Lunga? Because I want to close the project that week. So now he's moved to Monday, which I'll send the invitation out. And we'll probably do Lunga on Wednesday and then close off the project based on that on at least the consumer and SMB side. I think that's it. Okay, thanks everyone. Thank you so much, guys. Thank you. Bye. Yes. Good, good. Thank you. How are you doing?
I'm good, thanks. Are you out of your... Much, much better. Although this morning is quite cold. Yes. A bit chilly. Yes, yes, yes, yes. I went to go stand in the sun for a few minutes just now, but anyways. What I was calling about was, obviously you guys had the conversation this morning, right? And I was not there. So I just wanted to check. So when I was making notes now, I obviously talked about, I mean, I'm obviously considering EA, right?