
Thoughts on YC's Female Founders Conference - mbellotti
http://techrotica.tumblr.com/post/78455204222
======
gmays
I posted my thoughts on the conference in another related thread here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7334744](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7334744)

But since it's relevant, I'll post them again here. TL;DR: I thought the
conference was awesome and look forward to watching it streamed again next
year. Here's my original comment:

This was a great conference. I didn't attend (I'm male), but I watched the
livestream and learned a lot from the speakers.

I especially liked the conference because I learned about the female
perspective. My wife isn't a startup founder, but has a similarly stressful
job (flies F/A-18's in stressful, life-threatening situations), with similar
hours (14hrs/day and often weekends), in a similar environment (male-dominated
Marine Corps). I often wonder how she'll manage her work when we have
kids...everything from pregnancy to making time for the kids when she's busy.
It's easier for me since I work at home now, but she'll deal with the same
challenges that some of the founders mentioned. And knowing her, she'll feel
incredibly guilty for not being around.

Anyway, I enjoyed the conference, learned a lot, and look forward to it next
year.

------
thatthatis
It occurred to me recently that if the goal is to eventually get to gender
equality, female focused tech groups should set the proportion of their
tickets available at x% female, y% male where x and y are the inverse of their
proportions at some equivalent male dominated group. Over time, this policy
should pull men and women together instead of apart.

What good is it if women only know other women and men only know other men?

~~~
001sky
Nothing is wrong with your point, but you are applying a 1->N scaling strategy
to a 0->1 problem. That is to say, this type of event is brings people
together because n=small, and the act of concentration brings more scaling
effects that a larger act of dispersion. Over time, this will shift...and your
preferred methods will make more sense in a context where dispersion is more
important than concentration. But it is a good point to make that neither one
is perfect or viable as a standalone method.

~~~
thatthatis
I disagree slightly with your categorization of the problem. I think your
characterization, while accurate in itself, is missing the "otherizing" and
"in-grouping" that happens if we only foster no-boys-allowed special interest
groups.

Lets say a given women in tech event is phenomenally successful, that means
that men are now precluded from attending a key event. Whether consciously or
unconsciously men understand this and have a discentive to making the group
phenomenally successful. The more successful it is, the worse the world
becomes for the average man's career.

When it is x%/y% it puts things into a different category. In x%/y% all
success is shared.

1) Men interested in attending these female focused events would have a vested
interest in increasing both the size of the female event (-> more male
tickets) and increasing the % of women at other events (-> more male tickets).
If I, as a man, wanted to attend the YC female founders conference as it was
just held, there is no way I can - so it isn't worth me spending any time on.
If however, the event had an x%/y% structure, one of the ways I could gain
admission would be to actively bring women into tech (I assume this would be a
large part of the selection criteria by which the small number of men get
admitted). Everyone's interests are now aligned.

2) The connections formed between the small number of men and the large number
of women at x%/y% female events are connections that will act as a bridge to
getting more women at the regular events. It's well demonstrated in
organizational behavior that even small amounts of conscious cross department
interaction leads to greater sharing of ideas and follow on connections in
both groups.

2b) I'm concerned that most female focused groups are only creating in-group
connections. Meaning the approach they're taking leads to B0->B1 and
eventually B1->BN (where the existing tech scene is already at AN as a boy's
club). Which is to say, they're creating a silo of connections. We shouldn't
be looking at the problem as "How do we create the best shadow tech scene for
women." But rather, "how do we make the tech scene gender neutral."

3) By making these groups x%/y% you put men in the tech scene in a more
acutely aware state. "You can't go in there, it's women only" is easy to parse
as a group of 'others.' Human psyches are pretty good at dealing with blanked
exclusions -- its a rival tribe, which is fine, I have my own tribe. The
situation of "You could go in there, but it's very hard to get in because they
only let in x% men" makes the problem tangible, evaluative, and solvable. Long
story short on this point, I think with x% men, men feel the exclusion in a
stronger and more productive way. Men would feel excluded in a way that is
more productive for society if events were x%/y%. In the current state of
affairs, nobody can write a blog post titled "How I hacked my way into a men's
ticket to the YC women's conference."

3b) Right now 90% of the tech scene has no skin in the game for getting in
more women. Some may have philosophical beliefs or take a very long term view
and thus work towards female events happening anyways. But, x%/y% would mean
we can a much larger portion of the 90% working on the problem in a way that
has tangible near term benefits for everyone.

Finally, we as a society only really permit discriminatory subgroups like this
when the size of the subgroup is very very small. "Men in teaching," "Women in
tech." By setting up "women in tech" groups as permitted discriminatory
subgroups we are betting against these groups ever achieving parity. Because,
when they do achieve anything even approaching parity they'll have to
reconstitute. Think League of Women voters -- they're now a league of
concerned voters of all genders, but their historical permitted discriminatory
subgroup focus hampers their activities to this day. x%/y% means the group
will never have to go through an identity crisis or a period where it is in
the grey area of whether it is still acceptable to keep their historical
membership barriers.

~~~
001sky
Lets actually look at a more realistic example. Women in CS and Engineering
today might be ~10-20pct of FTEs. That means, in a medium sized shop, where
there might be 20-30 engineers, you have a situation whee how many are women?
2-6? That sounds about right. Now, if you are in this position...the issue is
that the guys have 18-24 FTEs amongst their co-hort. In order for the girls to
get the same type of network-density you need to bring together the equivalent
of 5 to 10x shops together. That is just simpe seeding of network effects. If
you worked in a shop with only 2 or 3 other people who did your job, the "law
of small numbers" means your chances of leveraging this social infrastructure
are "hit or miss". There are too many simple variables (personality type, work
habits, social background, etc) for an effective "matching problem" to be
solved. Or use another example: would you go to a school with only 2 or 3
students in your major? Most people would see that as a red-flag. Social
isolation is at odds with the type of network effects most people seek to
develop at school. MBAs for example typically invest $250k to buy a commodity
education, paired with a very exclusive rolodex. The value of this degree
would almost be worthless in a school with 3 other students (regardless of the
teaching).

This is quite a different argument from lowering standards or affirmative
action or whatever you want to call it. In fact, it is precisely the strategy
YC used to bring its co-horts together. Back in 2005, VCs did not back many
founders without an advanced degree (MA/PhD or MBA). As a result, it made
sense to bring together (concentrate) a cohort, because the general peer group
of VC backed CEO's would not have much in common with a 22 year old with no
job experience. By bringing folks together that face similar challenges, you
are not (per-se) giving these people special treatment or lowering standards;
you're just providing a level os support infractructure that lets them "self-
help" there way through many problems. It is actually critical that you don't
"dumb down" standards, for this to work.

~~~
thatthatis
I don't see how you can suggest that the scenarios I'm discussing are
unrealistic. This thread is in response to a concrete female only conference
of exactly the type I'm discussing. They don't fit the model(s) you're
proposing as well, but that makes them different cases, not unrealistic ones.

I think we are talking about a fairly different types of things. I'm talking
about low-touch high n networking as you find in events, conferences, and
meetups; I am not talking about high touch networking like accelerators and
degree programs. Whether my suggestions are valid or not in the high touch
scenario you're discussing, I don't know, as I haven't considered that case in
sufficient depth.

Your suggestion of there being value in a separate network hinges on, I think,
there being a fundamental incompatibility between the groups. 22yo vs 32yo
MBAs have real structural differences in their lives that make divided self
help a plausible solution. I just don't buy that the differences we're talking
about are significant enough to create fundamental incompatibilities. "The
female tech network" vs "The tech network" smacks of separate but equal to me.

I have no problem with female focused accelerators, but remember that YC
doesn't systemically exclude MBAs to create a network of 22y.o.s.

I'm enjoying the discussion (minus the part where you try to dismiss my cases
as unrealistic) as you're bringing up models and cases that I hadn't yet
considered.

Is the goal to have two networks, or to achieve gender neutrality in the
existing meta-network? I think our goal is gender neutrality.

------
zaidf
_I don’t know why this comment struck me as odd … maybe it’s because the only
people I know who identify themselves specifically as “nontechnical
cofounders” are women._

This means that you seriously need to go meet more founders. There are
probably as many non-tech founders who are men as tech founders. These
founders(such as Alexis from reddit) have filled the role in a very similar
manner as Jessica describes.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Sure, but I think her point stands. They don't identify themselves as a
nontechnical cofounder: they're the business guy, the money guy, the sales guy
or the industry guy. Using a negative to describe one's own role comes across
as very self-deprecating.

~~~
zaidf
Alexis has a record of identifying himself as the non-technical founder. So do
many, many other founders. Just do a google on this query to see founders
describing themselves as non-technical: _non-technical founder
site:news.ycombinator.com_

~~~
bertil
From what I remember, those describe themselves as ‘the business guy’ or ‘the
marketing guy’ but give advice, mainly about the attitude to have to fellow
‘non-technical co-founders’, assuming often openly that they do have a needed
skill-set, that happens not to be code.

~~~
zaidf
The precise word that is used to describe your role in specific situations
matters a lot less than knowing what it encompasses in whole. No one is saying
anywhere that you should go out of your way to tell investors that your duties
include cleaning the toilet and ordering food. No, to investors you are in
charge of keeping lights on; in a meeting to discuss a partnership you assume
charge of user growth; when it's time for lunch you assume charge of being the
pizza boy/girl.

~~~
bertil
> The precise word that is used to describe your role in specific situations
> matters a lot less

The main point made by people studying career imbalance between genders seems
to be that it tends to do at a statistical level.

------
pron
This kind of article shows why we need more women in tech. Many, many more.
Critical and insightful but also respectful and modest.

One thing that was missing, though, was politics. Politics in the true sense
of the word, namely, the power struggles in the tech society which give rise
to the current status quo.

Also, she says, "No one pretended tech was a meritocracy". The thing is, tech
_is_ a meritocracy, and that's part of the politics of tech. Meritocracy, of
course, is a joke. It is not a desirable state of affairs, because it should
be obvious that "merit" is a false currency used to justify what _is_ , rather
than work toward what should be. It is the quintessential naturalistic
fallacy.

It amazes me time and again how people can take the term seriously, which only
demonstrates how dangerous it is. Such a blatant, perverted joke, a dystopia
that some intelligent people mistake for a utopia. Wikipedia says this:
"Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" was
first coined in the 1950s. It was used by British politician and sociologist,
Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay, _The Rise of the Meritocracy_ ,
which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring
intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else... In this book the term had
distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of
the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes
of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group."

I still can't fathom how meritocracy can be taken as anything but a negative.
I mean, the first question that comes to mind (or, rather, the second after
"what is merit") is, "who has merit and why, and who does not?" Once this
question is asked, it is immediately apparent that any attempt to paint
"meritocracy" in a positive light is ludicrous.

~~~
lexcorvus
_work toward what should be_

Ay, there's the rub: what should we work toward? This issue almost never gets
discussed, except by implication. We hear over and over how we "need more
women in tech". But even if everyone agreed that we do, how much more is
enough? Should we stop after reaching 33% women? 50%? 60%?

Often we hear the vague assertion that the percentage of women in tech should
be close to the percentage of women in the general population—you can hear it
echo every time the word "underrepresented" gets uttered—but this assertion is
rarely justified. And indeed we can see how potentially absurd this criterion
is by applying it to cases that don't serve the same political ends as "more
women in tech"—i.e., by observing that women are "underrepresented" in prison,
men are "underrepresented" in the daycare industry, etc. (Putting more women
in prison isn't often offered as a way to stick it to the Patriarchy.)

The assumption that increasing the percentage of women in tech is
virtuous—quite a different goal, mind you, from encouraging all interested
parties (female or not) to pursue the subject—pervades our discourse, to the
point where " _improve_ the percentage of women in tech" and " _increase_ the
percentage of women in tech" have become synonymous. To see through this
trick, simply consider the similar case of the percentage of college graduates
who are female. Women currently constitute approximately 57% of college
graduates; i.e., women are _over_ represented by a gap of around 14% vs. men.
The question then arises: what would it mean to "improve" this percentage?

We see in a flash that "equality" has nothing to do with it—I have never seen
any mainstream source call for "improving the percentage of women among
college graduates" by _decreasing_ that percentage—unless, of course, by
"equality" we mean that having women overrepresented among college graduates
will help address _other_ inequalities, such as the preponderance of male
CEOs, male professors, and male billionaires. In this case, we simply return
to the beginning: what should we work toward? Should we strive for
proportional gender representation in every field of human endeavor? Unless
men and women (and, indeed, all people) are perfectly identical, this is a
prescription for eternal conflict—a fair characterization, I'd say, of our
lamentable _status quo_.

~~~
pron
_Ay, there 's the rub: what should we work toward?_

The first thing is, as always, to think about the current situation, and
analyze its politics. See who the parties are. What their interests are.
Whether their interests are authentic, or merely a result of many years of
social pressure. What power is in question? Who has it? Who doesn't? Why? Once
you understand the politics (which isn't easy because we often confuse
politics with authentic will, merely because we've been subject to that
politics for so long that we don't know anything else), then you can have
people argue over values and how they believe things should be.

~~~
pron
I'd like to add one more thing: you question whether having more women in tech
is virtuous. I don't know if it is, but I can say this: the tech industry
(unlike prison) yields a lot of power in our society. And when a certain group
of people i largely excluded from a source of power, it stands to reason that
there's a problem here.

~~~
lexcorvus
_And when a certain group of people i[s] largely excluded from a source of
power, it stands to reason that there 's a problem here._

This is one of the great unexamined claims of our time. It assumes that
members of Group X are the best (or even good) advocates for the welfare of
Group X. But if Group X is underrepresented in the halls of power, it _does
not follow_ that Group X would be better off if they had more influence. This
is easy to see by setting _Group X_ to _minor children_ , whose representation
in powerful positions is negligible, and indeed whose members are ineligible
even to vote. But extending the franchise to five-year-olds isn't (to my
knowledge) a top political priority, and rightly so. "Children's suffrage"
would generally make children worse off, not better.

Rather than a dog-eat-dog free-for-all that pits Group X against Group Y and
Group Y against Group Z, a sounder principle is this: _for responsible
government, the responsible must rule._ Responsible rulers can balance the
inevitably competing interests of different groups, using the time-honored but
curiously unfashionable virtue of _human wisdom_. And while it is certainly
the case that there are many wise and responsible women—and, indeed, not a few
wise and responsible children—the assumption that all human subgroups are on
average equally wise and responsible is _completely unjustified_. The trickery
implicit in the phrase "excluded from a source of power" is thus revealed:
just because a group is underrepresented in the halls of power, it _does not
follow_ that they are being "excluded" by anything.

How then to ensure that the responsible will rule? We arrive now at the key
question. It is as yet unanswered. But it seems like a question worth working
on...

------
Udo
It's expected that every word anybody said during that conference will be
scrutinized beyond what's appropriate, simply because it's such a touchy
subject. That's probably the reason why the video of the conference was
already taken offline today while I was watching it (edit: it's not, see
below). Generally I think it would be more productive if judgements weren't
done on a hair trigger, because that's what makes this topic so toxic when in
fact it shouldn't be.

Personally I found the presentations very entertaining and insightful - and
even though I didn't have the opportunity to watch the panel to the end, I was
struck by the impression that for the most part these were normal startup
stories. That's a good thing, because it means while there is work to do when
it comes to making the playing field fairer to women founders, we're at a
state where the main issue is not "how to cope with my gender" but "how do we
get our startup off the ground".

The area where I believe much more work is required is how we get more woman
programmers started. The article touches very slightly on that, but then
misses the mark:

 _> To get a male founder to admit he doesn’t write the code his startup
depends on you have to twist his arm. With a female founder it’s the second
sentence out of her mouth. As if to say “PS - don’t take me seriously”_

A completely different way to read this is that people who code don't have a
lot of status in circles of non-programmers. So a non-technical founder might
in fact expect to be taken _more_ seriously by professing hacking ignorance.

One reason why non-technical women founders are quick to volunteer that info
might be a subconscious reflection of that nerd stigma, and of course that's
probably a large reason why women don't become programmers as often as men in
the first place. It seems to me that perception of social status is the core
issue.

To be fair though it was a founders' conference, not a female hackers
conference.

~~~
pg
_That 's probably the reason why the video of the conference was already taken
offline today while I was watching it._

No, we took the video offline because one of the speakers hadn't realized the
talks were being filmed. It will be back once we edit that one out.

~~~
gmays
Understandable, but also unfortunate. I saw the whole original talk and
thought it was amazing. It's rare to get that kind of honesty, especially from
a unique point of view. Unfortunately, our community has a way of punishing
honesty like that, which is part of the reason we have so many unnecessary
failures.

------
btrautsc
> _when you’re the nontechnical cofounder, your job is everything that’s
> nontechnical’ including grocery shopping and errand running. I don’t know
> why this comment struck me as odd_

As a non-technical cofounder, this is the truth. I'm not sure what
expectations at large are, but I can corroborate this story and believe it
should be most 'non-technical' cofounders expectation of reality.

Take out trash, buy office furniture, _go on sales calls_ , arrange the
company insurance plan, order dinner on late nights, line up investor
meetings, talk to users... I could literally go on forever - those are off the
top of my head from last week.

Technical cofounders (and employees) should be maximizing their impact by
doing technical aspects - other founders should be selling, marketing,
building the business, and sometimes have to order food, clean up the office,
or go see the company lawyers/ accountants/ & run errands.

~~~
nicoles
Agreed. Even as simply the 'less' technical cofounder, if I can spot an
opportunity to increase my more-technical team members time coding, I do it.

------
wiwillia
I refer to myself as the non-technical co-founder all the time. I'm a male,
and the CEO of our company. In my personal experience, I've never heard anyone
equate "non-technical co-founder" to a term used only by female founders.

I also find that many of the entrepreneurs and founders I meet are incredibly
humble (disarmingly so - the founders of Dropbox and Airbnb have zero ego). I
don't know if there's any YC alumn who would say that Jessica is anything less
than essential within YC.

------
chacham15
I think that this article misses one main point about Jessica Livingston: that
she is different from other women; she said so herself. Not all women have the
same type of personality. That is not a bad thing. "With a female founder it’s
the second sentence out of her mouth. As if to say “PS - don’t take me
seriously”" This is the point in which the author goes too far. Jessica knows
that everyone at YC values her word. How many times has pg said that he often
looks to Jessica about funding a group? For someone with a different
personality, that statement might be more accurate, but I highly doubt it is
for Jessica Livingston. In conclusion, everyone is different. Men are
different from other men and women are different from other women. Do not
assume that a statement means something because of the gender of the person
saying it without taking into account the personality of the person.

------
mountaineer
If you're interested in following the results of this conference and/or
discovering more female founders, technical or not, I made a large Twitter
list [1] to keep up to date.

[1] [https://twitter.com/ryanwi/lists/female-
founders](https://twitter.com/ryanwi/lists/female-founders)

------
projectileboy
Putting on the conference was a great idea and was well executed, and I think
is an important contribution towards improving the odds for female founders.
To Jessica and the rest of the YC crew, thanks from the community. Please
don't be discouraged by negative comments from the minority.

------
mnavada
I attended the conference. Being "non-technical" doesn't mean you're doing
less important or less challenging work. You're part of a team, and you should
be proud of it.

My husband and I have a startup. Yes, he is the technical side of the team. As
the CEO, I mainly shape the vision for the product, strategize on how we grow,
and am in charge of marketing. When we discuss our technical strategies,
learning how to code is not enough. The vision for the company guides the
technical decisions.

Just because I don't sit and code our product also doesn't mean that I'm
clueless about the major tech decisions we make. For example, in choosing
whether or not to build our products with PHP or Python, I had to learn the
pros and cons of each language, and then we made the decisions together. BTW,
Python it is :)

During the talk, there was a push to have more girls who code. And rightly so,
since women are grossly underrepresented. But for now, I actually think that
it's great to have women who have the confidence to found companies without
being technical. As Kathryn from The Muse explained, Alex, her co-founder
learned how to code. Necessity is the mother of invention.

As for what I got out of the conference, in brief, I learned that the talks I
loved were the ones where the founder was humble and matter-of-fact.

------
jpeg_hero
Filed under: no good deed goes unpunished.

------
jlehman
_First thing that surprised me about the Female Founder’s Conference is that
it was all women._

I find this whole line of reasoning a little off, given the stats mentioned in
YC's blog here: [http://blog.ycombinator.com/highlights-from-ycs-first-
female...](http://blog.ycombinator.com/highlights-from-ycs-first-female-
founders-conference)

The first paragraph mentions:

 _We’d originally planned to host the event at our office, which could fit
about 150 attendees. 1,200 impressive applications later, we decided to move
the event to the Computer History Museum where we could accommodate three
times the people._

Given that all 450 accepted attendees were women, I can assume that some women
were rejected. Would it have made sense to reject qualified women to this
event in place of qualified men? Personally, I think not.

------
nawitus
" and deal with the boys"

Well.. that started out pretty sexist.

~~~
Crake
Saying "and deal with the girls" would get a lot of guys in trouble these
days. Women too if you're on the internet where your gender is indeterminate,
since feminists will get mad at you and assume you're an Oppressive Male.

------
kyro
An overall well-balanced article, but I find it hard to believe that Jessica
meant anything more regarding non-technical founders than someone having to
carry their weight by taking care of the majority of non-technical tasks in a
startup whose product is likely wholly technical. I've heard male non-
technical founders recount memories of making coffee for coders to keep them
happy. If anything, she gave a more accurate depiction of the role than
someone who calls themselves the business or product guy.

------
mbesto
> _It wasn’t just that she referred to herself as a nontechnical cofounder
> it’s that she repeatedly diminished herself and her own qualifications at a
> conference supposedly organized to stop other women from doing the same
> thing. Has no one ever pointed out to Jessica that at the end of the day YC
> is an investment company and that she was the only YC cofounder with actual
> investment experience? That, if anything, she was the ONLY ONE of that group
> even remotely qualified to be there? Not a tagalong in her boyfriend’s
> company who has to constantly apologize for her presence._

Interesting that was the OP's response. I simply took it as her being humble,
not diminutive - so for me, her message was clearly delivered - take pride in
whatever it is you do and do it well, regardless of role or sex.
Interestingly, after hearing her keynote I thought she was the "technical" co-
founder (she had investment experience in a investment based company) and pg
was the non-technical co-founder (he was the hustler and gained the attention
of the developers they would fund and match them up with investors).

------
bertil
> Giving the idea of “separate but equal” another try and seeing if it plays
> in our favor this time?

I think that this is a key point about that conference, and TED Woman. That
and the implied paramount of sexism idea that if they let men talk, there are
going to be chauvinist pig, because that’s indistinguishable from having a
penis.

------
rachellaw
The first half sounds like an echo-chamber hugbox The second sounds useful,
but mainly because the content was useful. Did any of the conference address
what a female founder is specifically?

I'm still concerned that a Female Founders Conference would exclude men or
people of other genders. Yes it's great to have a platform to stand as a
woman, but what about trans* or non-traditional genders? Where do they go
then? The whole idea of feminism is inclusion, which means including trans,
queer and other genders and YES including men too.

~~~
Crake
As a gender and sexual minority, I try to stay clear of feminists. (At least,
when someone says they are one, I get wary.) They're some of the most GSM
hostile people I've met.

>The whole idea of feminism is inclusion, which means including trans, queer
and other genders and YES including men too.

Mainstream feminism doesn't agree, except for when someone wants to start an
equal rights movement for another demographic, like men or GLBT. Then they
start acting like patent lawyers.

I would suggest looking into egalitarianism, which lacks the gender supremacy
aspect of feminism. You can continue to identify as a feminist, that's fine
and 100% up to you...but you're going to spend more time fighting other
feminists about what "feminism" means than doing anything else. :/

~~~
rachellaw
Well that's the problem with preconceptions of feminism. Egalitarianism was
originally a spinoff from 60s feminism (lead by Stein, Haraway, Latour etc)
They actually went one step beyond that human equality, but suggested that
machines/objects were on par with humanity since it augmented human
intelligence (Engelbart).

The problem nowadays is that feminism has turned into a splinter pile of
infighting groups who, honestly, don't know what feminism is. Feminism has
nothing to do with female superiority, it was simply put forward (along with
queer theory, post-colonialism) as a framework to analyze society.

------
tyoung
If I wasn't married to my cofounder, I would have the saddest love life.

------
the_rosentotter
An unrelated nitpick (this is HN after all): The white-on-black text really
bothered me. I am seeing ghosting a few minutes after reading the piece (which
I read in its entirety because it was pretty good).

------
slowmotiony
When can we expect YC's Male Founders Conference?

