Coevolving Innovations

… in Business Organizations and Information Technologies

Currently Viewing Posts in innovation

Optimism for open sourcing

The October 2018 acquisition of Red Hat by IBM gives me hope.  Both IBM and Red Hat have been champions in promoting open sourcing behaviours.

Open sourcing is an open innovation behaviour related to, but distinct from, open source as licensing.  [Ing (2017) chap. 1, p. 1].

The label of open sourcing frames ongoing ways that organizations and individuals conduct themselves with others through continually sharing artifacts and practices of mutual benefit. The label of private sourcing frames the contrasting and more traditional ways that business organizations and allied partners develop and keep artifacts and practices to themselves.  [Ing (2017) sec. 1.2, p. 5].

The label of open source is most readily recognized from software development. An open source license allows free use, modification and sharing.  Open sourcing is a norm where the resources of system internals, e.g. artifacts and practices, are shared in a community beyond the originators.  Private sourcing is coined as a norm where the resources of system internals are reserved within a privileged group.  [Ing (2017) sec. 1.3, p.6]

This deal continues a socio-economic trajectory by IBM …

  • starting in 1993 with the Lou Gerstner expectation of “open, distributed user-based solutions” after the Chantilly meeting [Ing (2017) sec. 2.3.1, pp. 55-56];

The October 2018 acquisition of Red Hat by IBM gives me hope.  Both IBM and Red Hat have been champions in promoting open sourcing behaviours.

Open sourcing is an open innovation behaviour related to, but distinct from, open source as licensing.  [Ing (2017) chap. 1, p. 1].

The label of open sourcing frames ongoing ways that organizations and individuals conduct themselves with others through continually sharing artifacts and practices of mutual benefit. The label of private sourcing frames the contrasting and more traditional ways that business organizations and allied partners develop and keep artifacts and practices to themselves.  [Ing (2017) sec. 1.2, p. 5].

The label of open source is most readily recognized from software development. An open source license allows free use, modification and sharing.  Open sourcing is a norm where the resources of system internals, e.g. artifacts and practices, are shared in a community beyond the originators.  Private sourcing is coined as a norm where the resources of system internals are reserved within a privileged group.  [Ing (2017) sec. 1.3, p.6]

This deal continues a socio-economic trajectory by IBM …

  • starting in 1993 with the Lou Gerstner expectation of “open, distributed user-based solutions” after the Chantilly meeting [Ing (2017) sec. 2.3.1, pp. 55-56];

Open Innovation Learning, Book Launch

Recordings of the book launch proceedings are now available as a web video playlist, and downloadable files.

Open Innovation Learning: Theory building on open sourcing while private sourcing was first released as a perfect bound softcopy and an open access PDF in November 2017.  In February 2018, the ePub and Mobi editions were put online.

On February 21, a special session of Systems Thinking Ontario invited friends and colleagues to celebrate the publication that had taken most of the past three years in full-time research and writing.  The recordings are available in 4 parts:

  • 1. Welcome, by Peter Jones
  • 2. Self-introductions by attendees in the audience
  • 3. Highlights of the book, presented by David Ing
  • 4. Commentary by Stephen Perelgut and Tim Lloyd, followed by questions from the audience

With family, friends and colleagues attending, this was one of the most memorable evenings of my life.

1. Welcome, by Peter Jones

As the official host of Systems Thinking Ontario at OCADU University, Peter Jones served as the master of ceremonies.

The files are also available for download onto a mobile device.

Digital video
(5m48s)
H.264 MP4 WebM
[20180221_1840_ST-ON OILTB_Jones HD_504kbps.m4v]
(HD 504Kbps 28MB)[20180221_1840_ST-ON OILTB_Jones nHD_49kpbs.m4v]
(nHD 49Kkps 8MB)
[20180221_1840_ST-ON OILTB_Jones HD_826kbps.webm]
(HD 826Kbps 45MB)[20180221_1840_ST-ON OILTB_Jones nHD_120kbps.webm]
(nHD 120Kbps 13MB)
Digital audio
(5m48s)
[20180221_1840_ST-ON_OILTB_Launch_Welcome_PeterJones.mp3]
(5MB)

Peter explained the Nordic tradition of presenting dissertation research in a venue open to the public. While this gathering was not so formal, my participation with Systems Thinking Ontario and OCAD University made this assembly a natural session.

Recordings of the book launch proceedings are now available as a web video playlist, and downloadable files.

Open Innovation Learning: Theory building on open sourcing while private sourcing was first released as a perfect bound softcopy and an open access PDF in November 2017.  In February 2018, the ePub and Mobi editions were put online.

On February 21, a special session of Systems Thinking Ontario invited friends and colleagues to celebrate the publication that had taken most of the past three years in full-time research and writing.  The recordings are available in 4 parts:

  • 1. Welcome, by Peter Jones
  • 2. Self-introductions by attendees in the audience
  • 3. Highlights of the book, presented by David Ing
  • 4. Commentary by Stephen Perelgut and Tim Lloyd, followed by questions from the audience

With family, friends and colleagues attending, this was one of the most memorable evenings of my life.

1. Welcome, by Peter Jones

As the official host of Systems Thinking Ontario at OCADU University, Peter Jones served as the master of ceremonies.

The files are also available for download onto a mobile device.

Digital video
(5m48s)
H.264 MP4 WebM
[20180221_1840_ST-ON OILTB_Jones HD_504kbps.m4v]
(HD 504Kbps 28MB)[20180221_1840_ST-ON OILTB_Jones nHD_49kpbs.m4v]
(nHD 49Kkps 8MB)
[20180221_1840_ST-ON OILTB_Jones HD_826kbps.webm]
(HD 826Kbps 45MB)[20180221_1840_ST-ON OILTB_Jones nHD_120kbps.webm]
(nHD 120Kbps 13MB)
Digital audio
(5m48s)
[20180221_1840_ST-ON_OILTB_Launch_Welcome_PeterJones.mp3]
(5MB)

Peter explained the Nordic tradition of presenting dissertation research in a venue open to the public. While this gathering was not so formal, my participation with Systems Thinking Ontario and OCAD University made this assembly a natural session.

Open Innovation Learning and Open Data

Making my dissertation relevant to non-academics calls for a change in style.  An invitation to speak at the Open Data Häme workshop, following announcement of funding by the European Regional Development Fund, gave a venue to unveil some normative theory-building from my research potentially useful in the real world.

This talk was fewer slides, and more talk.  With 9 content slides to cover in about an hour, the agenda was:

  • 1. Why does open data mean open sourcing (with commercial potential)?
  • 2. When did open data begin? What’s the history?
  • 3. How do behaviours change with open innovation learning?

The slides had been posted on the Coevolving Commons in advance of the event.

The slides has now been matched up with the digital audio recording, for viewing as a web video.  Another voice in the mix is Minna Takala, as a Senior Advisor at Häme Regional Council.

The audio recording was exceptionally clear, and is downloadable (so boosted volume is probably unnecessary).

Audio
Digital audio
(1h03m08s)
[20170810_Hame_Ing mp3] (58MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing 3db mp3] (volume boosted 3db, 58MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing 6db mp3] (volume boosted 6db, 58MB)

Alternatively, downloadable video files may be better for people on the move.

Video H.264 MP4 WebM
Digital video
(1h03m08s)
[Hame_Ing_HD  m4v]
(HD 325Kbps 238MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing_nHD m4v]
(nHD 109Kkps 97MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing webm]
(HD 470Kbps 212MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing nHD webm]
(nHD 177Kbps 80MB)

The first part of the talk places open data in the larger context and trend towards the behaviour of open sourcing, and open innovation. Open sourcing enables visibility into system internals, in contrast with private sourcing that makes internals opaque.  The rise of open sourcing became more noticeable with the advent of open source licensing in software, but can generalized outside of technology with an example of raising and catching salmon.

Making my dissertation relevant to non-academics calls for a change in style.  An invitation to speak at the Open Data Häme workshop, following announcement of funding by the European Regional Development Fund, gave a venue to unveil some normative theory-building from my research potentially useful in the real world.

This talk was fewer slides, and more talk.  With 9 content slides to cover in about an hour, the agenda was:

  • 1. Why does open data mean open sourcing (with commercial potential)?
  • 2. When did open data begin? What’s the history?
  • 3. How do behaviours change with open innovation learning?

The slides had been posted on the Coevolving Commons in advance of the event.

The slides has now been matched up with the digital audio recording, for viewing as a web video.  Another voice in the mix is Minna Takala, as a Senior Advisor at Häme Regional Council.

The audio recording was exceptionally clear, and is downloadable (so boosted volume is probably unnecessary).

Audio
Digital audio
(1h03m08s)
[20170810_Hame_Ing mp3] (58MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing 3db mp3] (volume boosted 3db, 58MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing 6db mp3] (volume boosted 6db, 58MB)

Alternatively, downloadable video files may be better for people on the move.

Video H.264 MP4 WebM
Digital video
(1h03m08s)
[Hame_Ing_HD  m4v]
(HD 325Kbps 238MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing_nHD m4v]
(nHD 109Kkps 97MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing webm]
(HD 470Kbps 212MB)
[20170810_Hame_Ing nHD webm]
(nHD 177Kbps 80MB)

The first part of the talk places open data in the larger context and trend towards the behaviour of open sourcing, and open innovation. Open sourcing enables visibility into system internals, in contrast with private sourcing that makes internals opaque.  The rise of open sourcing became more noticeable with the advent of open source licensing in software, but can generalized outside of technology with an example of raising and catching salmon.

Scenarios and Design: Instigating Change, Methods Framing, Scenario-Buffered Design

At the Oxford Futures Forum 2014, hosted by the Saïd Business School, I was invited to be a participant in a generative dialogue.  Each of the invitees was requested to submit a 250-word abstract and an image four months ahead of the event.  In two days, we had three group discussion meetings, where individuals were free to go to other groups (or form new groups) according to the ideas emerging from the dialogue.

This event runs on the Chatham House Rule:

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

Further, in a generative dialogue, ideas flow and merge as participant learn from each other, so representations related to people outside of the involved group don’t get a full appreciation for the unfolding learning.  Having been a participant in a series of prior IFSR Conversations that similarly focus on generative dialogue, any describing of the experience turns out somewhat inadequate.  The most that can be related to others are “proceedings”, where some of the ideas in progress are captured.  As a participant in Oxford Futures Forum, I was involved in three rounds of conversations, which can be roughly framed as:

  • design and scenarios to instigate change (as an introductory clustering to start the first round);
  • methods framing (as the emergent theme from the first round to go into a second round); and
  • scenario-buffered design (as the label that was presented as the conclusion of the third round).

Based on the abstract I had contributed some months earlier, the conference organizers initially slotted me into the “Design and Scenarios to Instigate Change” group.  A few of us had brief contact on a teleconference a few weeks before arriving at the event, and then in the pub on the night of arrival.  When the full group finally met face-to-face, we still didn’t really know each other.  As a way of getting involved with others, we were asked to present the abstract of another person from the group.  From those foundations, we started a loose discussion making sense of some common themes.  The organizers helpfully provided a note taking volunteer, Saba Riaz, to record some of this preliminary dialogue — a challenging flow to track, as the round 1 groups tried to make sense of  the ideas of others, as well as ourselves!  The proceedings (final report) included the following synopsis:

Round 1: Design and scenarios to instigate change

At the Oxford Futures Forum 2014, hosted by the Saïd Business School, I was invited to be a participant in a generative dialogue.  Each of the invitees was requested to submit a 250-word abstract and an image four months ahead of the event.  In two days, we had three group discussion meetings, where individuals were free to go to other groups (or form new groups) according to the ideas emerging from the dialogue.

This event runs on the Chatham House Rule:

When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

Further, in a generative dialogue, ideas flow and merge as participant learn from each other, so representations related to people outside of the involved group don’t get a full appreciation for the unfolding learning.  Having been a participant in a series of prior IFSR Conversations that similarly focus on generative dialogue, any describing of the experience turns out somewhat inadequate.  The most that can be related to others are “proceedings”, where some of the ideas in progress are captured.  As a participant in Oxford Futures Forum, I was involved in three rounds of conversations, which can be roughly framed as:

  • design and scenarios to instigate change (as an introductory clustering to start the first round);
  • methods framing (as the emergent theme from the first round to go into a second round); and
  • scenario-buffered design (as the label that was presented as the conclusion of the third round).

Based on the abstract I had contributed some months earlier, the conference organizers initially slotted me into the “Design and Scenarios to Instigate Change” group.  A few of us had brief contact on a teleconference a few weeks before arriving at the event, and then in the pub on the night of arrival.  When the full group finally met face-to-face, we still didn’t really know each other.  As a way of getting involved with others, we were asked to present the abstract of another person from the group.  From those foundations, we started a loose discussion making sense of some common themes.  The organizers helpfully provided a note taking volunteer, Saba Riaz, to record some of this preliminary dialogue — a challenging flow to track, as the round 1 groups tried to make sense of  the ideas of others, as well as ourselves!  The proceedings (final report) included the following synopsis:

Round 1: Design and scenarios to instigate change

Open source, private source: foundations

In my dissertation for Aalto University, I’ve chosen the label of “private source” in opposition for the label “open source”.  This dissertation has been under development for some years.  In November 2012, the annual Arctic Workshop — a meeting of graduate students and supervisors of the Finnish Doctoral Program in Industrial Engineering and Management — was scheduled to bring together participants from across Finland.  With a theme for 2012 of “Innovation and Sourcing”, and an opportune opening on my calendar, I went to Finland to participate.

As a graduate student, I prepared an article and presentation slides for the event.  The abstract sent in advance said:

This research paper is an excerpt from a forthcoming dissertation titled “Open source with private source: coevolving architectures, styles and subworlds in business”. The content has been extracted from the first and second chapters, particularly on foundational definitions. It has being contributed to the Arctic Workshop 2012 as a research paper as part of a thesis under development.

This thesis, as a complete work, inquires into the question: How do open source and private source coexist and coevolve as patterns of behaviour in business? The research approach chosen is inductive, from nine cases in which both open source and private source have been in play. Theories built in the fully-developed thesis are placed into pluralistic contexts, as an inductive approach to multiparadigm inquiry.

Coincident with the theme of “Innovation and Sourcing” for the Arctic Workshop 2012, this research paper aims to explain the terms “open source” and “private source”, mostly as distinct patterns as phenomena in contemporary business. The larger agenda of research into open source with private source has been largely precluded due to length.

While most people think that “open source” is about software, it’s about much more than that.  In addition, the label of “private source” has been carefully chosen with a deeper meaning, in contrast to labels of “closed source” or “proprietary”.

Since I’m about halfway through writing the first manuscript of the dissertation, I expect that these excerpts from the first and second chapter will eventually be revised.  The prescribed page limit (of 15 pages) was enough to introduce open source and private source, but not open source with private source.  A dissertation of 100 pages is normal.  I expect that my dissertation will much long than that.  Perhaps the average reader may be satisfied with this shorter excerpt.

[See the presentation and article on “Open source, private source: foundations” on the Coevolving Commons]

In my dissertation for Aalto University, I’ve chosen the label of “private source” in opposition for the label “open source”.  This dissertation has been under development for some years.  In November 2012, the annual Arctic Workshop — a meeting of graduate students and supervisors of the Finnish Doctoral Program in Industrial Engineering and Management — was scheduled to bring together participants from across Finland.  With a theme for 2012 of “Innovation and Sourcing”, and an opportune opening on my calendar, I went to Finland to participate.

As a graduate student, I prepared an article and presentation slides for the event.  The abstract sent in advance said:

This research paper is an excerpt from a forthcoming dissertation titled “Open source with private source: coevolving architectures, styles and subworlds in business”. The content has been extracted from the first and second chapters, particularly on foundational definitions. It has being contributed to the Arctic Workshop 2012 as a research paper as part of a thesis under development.

This thesis, as a complete work, inquires into the question: How do open source and private source coexist and coevolve as patterns of behaviour in business? The research approach chosen is inductive, from nine cases in which both open source and private source have been in play. Theories built in the fully-developed thesis are placed into pluralistic contexts, as an inductive approach to multiparadigm inquiry.

Coincident with the theme of “Innovation and Sourcing” for the Arctic Workshop 2012, this research paper aims to explain the terms “open source” and “private source”, mostly as distinct patterns as phenomena in contemporary business. The larger agenda of research into open source with private source has been largely precluded due to length.

While most people think that “open source” is about software, it’s about much more than that.  In addition, the label of “private source” has been carefully chosen with a deeper meaning, in contrast to labels of “closed source” or “proprietary”.

Since I’m about halfway through writing the first manuscript of the dissertation, I expect that these excerpts from the first and second chapter will eventually be revised.  The prescribed page limit (of 15 pages) was enough to introduce open source and private source, but not open source with private source.  A dissertation of 100 pages is normal.  I expect that my dissertation will much long than that.  Perhaps the average reader may be satisfied with this shorter excerpt.

[See the presentation and article on “Open source, private source: foundations” on the Coevolving Commons]

Innovation as open, collaborative, multidisciplinary, global

On more than one occasion, I’ve heard IBM executives assert:

The nature of innovation has changed. In the 21st century, innovation is open, collaborative, multidisciplinary and global.

The ideas of open, collaborative, multidisciplinary and global appeared in the Global Innovation Outlook 2.0 report that was published in mid-2006. These words appeared on IBM-internal slides presented by Nick Donofrio at an Consulting Leadership Exchange in September 2005, and at the external-facing conference on Education for the 21st Century in October 2006 … with lots of other occasions in between. But what do these four words mean?

To make some sense for myself, I’ve extended these words into phrases and contrasted their contexts in a table .

  Industrial age nature of innovation   21st century nature of innovation
Strategy Private methods and development enabling autonomous control over designs + Open standards and interfaces leveraging expedient platforms for advancing designs
Relationship Transactional production chains linked by inter-organizational contracting + Collaborative alliances coproducing accelerated learning
Method Analytical problem-solving + Multidisciplinary conversations
Economics Colonial trade + Global talent

I’ve been listening to audio recordings of Donofrio in conversation, as well as following Irving Wladawsky-Berger’s blog. While I believe that my reasoning is consistent with theirs, this is not something they’ve endorsed. When I present the right column to audiences, I generally see nods in agreement. At the same time, the implications of a contrasting left column on current business practices provokes some deeper reflections. Let me unpack each of the four points.

On more than one occasion, I’ve heard IBM executives assert:

The nature of innovation has changed. In the 21st century, innovation is open, collaborative, multidisciplinary and global.

The ideas of open, collaborative, multidisciplinary and global appeared in the Global Innovation Outlook 2.0 report that was published in mid-2006. These words appeared on IBM-internal slides presented by Nick Donofrio at an Consulting Leadership Exchange in September 2005, and at the external-facing conference on Education for the 21st Century in October 2006 … with lots of other occasions in between. But what do these four words mean?

To make some sense for myself, I’ve extended these words into phrases and contrasted their contexts in a table .

  Industrial age nature of innovation   21st century nature of innovation
Strategy Private methods and development enabling autonomous control over designs + Open standards and interfaces leveraging expedient platforms for advancing designs
Relationship Transactional production chains linked by inter-organizational contracting + Collaborative alliances coproducing accelerated learning
Method Analytical problem-solving + Multidisciplinary conversations
Economics Colonial trade + Global talent

I’ve been listening to audio recordings of Donofrio in conversation, as well as following Irving Wladawsky-Berger’s blog. While I believe that my reasoning is consistent with theirs, this is not something they’ve endorsed. When I present the right column to audiences, I generally see nods in agreement. At the same time, the implications of a contrasting left column on current business practices provokes some deeper reflections. Let me unpack each of the four points.

  • RSS qoto.org/@daviding (Mastodon)

    • New status by daviding October 9, 2019
      Declarations of sapiosexuality may describe individuals seeking partners for intellectual intercourse.> A self-described “sapiosexual," someone who is primarily attracted to intelligence over physical appearance, Van Dusen says she now screens her dates for post-secondary education. [.....]> Many sapiosexuals acknowledge the term can come off elitist, but in the often superficial world of online dating, they […]
    • New status by daviding August 19, 2019
      In the Canadian press, this is attributed to inverted yield curve, resulting from the trade war. > Anyone buying that bond is willingly buying an investment that's guaranteed to lose money, but investors are more than happy to buy it up - because the fear is that alternative investments will fare even worse. [....]> Those […]
    • New status by daviding August 19, 2019
      There's something seriously wrong in the global financial markets, when banks are offering mortgages at zero or negative rates. > Jyske Bank, Denmark's third largest, has begun offering borrowers a 10-year deal at -0.5%, while another Danish bank, Nordea, says it will begin offering 20-year fixed-rate deals at 0% and a 30-year mortgage at 0.5%.> […]
    • New status by daviding August 18, 2019
      Web video of Systems Changes: Learning from the Christopher Alexander Legacy, extending #patternlanguage especially Eishin School and Multi-Service Centers methods-in-practice. For #SystemsThinking Ontario, up the learning curve on ongoing research. http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/systems-changes-learning-from-the-christopher-alexander-legacy-st-on-2019-02-11/
    • New status by daviding August 16, 2019
      Web video of presentation of Evolving Pattern language towards an Affordance Language, 2018, on week visiting#RaphaelArar and #JimSpohrer at Almaden. Insider's history of science and prospects http://coevolving.com/blogs/index.php/archive/evolving-pattern-language-towards-an-affordance-language-almaden-2018-05-09/#systemsthinking #patternlanguage
  • RSS on IngBrief

    • Own opinion, but not facts
      “You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts” by #DanielPatrickMoynihan is predated on @Freakonomics by #BernardMBaruch 1950 “Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts”. Source: “There Are Opinions, And Then There Are Facts” | Fred Shapiro […]
    • R programming is from S, influenced by APL
      History of data science tools has evolved to #rstats of the 1990s, from the S-Language at Bell Labs in the 1970s, and the
    • Bullshit, Politics, and the Democratic Power of Satire | Paul Babbitt | 2013
      Satire can be an antidote, says Prof. #PaulBabbitt @muleriders , to #bullshit (c.f. rhetoric; hypocrisy; crocodile tears; propaganda; intellectual dishonesty; politeness, etiquette and civility; commonsense and conventional wisdom; symbolic votes; platitudes and valence issues).
    • Health Systems Research and Critical Systems Thinking: The case for partnership | Michael C. Jackson, Luis G. Sambo | 2019/08
      If we don’t first know “what is system is”, how do we approach an intervention? #MichaelCJackson OBE and Dr. #LuisGSambo appreciate the difference between “systems thinking” (plural) and “system dynamics” (singular), and suggest expanding theory with Critical #SystemThinking in Health Systems Research. An ignorance of history is, if anything, even more pronounced among those authors […]
    • Yin-Yang theory alongside meridians, Five Elements as secondary emblems | Kaptchuk (1983)
      In deciphering Yin-Yang and Five Elements (Five Phases) thinking, #Kaptchuk (1983) has a footnote and then an appendix that clarifies the way forward for appreciating foundations of Chinese medicine favouring the former.
    • Defining the ‘field at a given time’ | Lewin | 1943
      The field theory in psychology by #KurtLewin 1943 derives from classical field theory (viz. electromagnetism and gravitation), predating quantum field theory (viz. subatomic particles). For psychology, Lewin wrote in 1943 how history (and a subjective view of the future) matters. It is correct that field theory emphasizes the importance of the fact that any event […]
  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • RSS on daviding.com

    • 2019/09 Moments September 2019
      Full month, winding down family business in Gravenhurst, starting Ryerson Chang certificate program in Big Data, with scheduled dinners with family and friends.
    • 2019/08 Moments August 2018
      Enjoyed summer with events in Toronto, followed by trips back my home town Gravenhurst, staying overnight for the first time in over 30 years.
    • 2019/07 Moments July 2019
      Busy month of living every day of the summer to the fullest, visiting family and friends, enjoying the local sights of the city.
    • 2019/06 Moments June 2019
      Summer arrived in Toronto, with the month ending in travel to BC and Oregon.
    • 2019/05 Moments May 2019
      Family time, empty nest, short trip to conference nearby, friends at home.
    • 2019/04 Moments April 2019
      End of a 23-day visit in Shanghai, readjusting to Eastern Time with the many lecture, meetup, friends and family distractions of Toronto.
  • RSS on Media Queue

  • Meta

  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
    Theme modified from DevDmBootstrap4 by Danny Machal