[HN Gopher] The SaaS Org Chart
___________________________________________________________________
The SaaS Org Chart
Author : anacleto
Score : 195 points
Date : 2021-07-25 16:24 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (sacks.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (sacks.substack.com)
| haram_masala wrote:
| For those of us who want to start an indie one-person SaaS, this
| is sobering - because it means that for a while, you'll be doing
| all 50 of these jobs. And, paid far less than any of them.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Here's the good news: when it's just you, you don't need HR,
| because there are no interactions between employees, no hiring
| and no firing. Before you have any income, you barely need a
| CFO function, and so on and so forth.
|
| Really, you only have about five roles:
|
| - make the service - run the service - market the service -
| accept money for the service - support the service
|
| and a little later, talk to a pro about taxes.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| No, you won't. Most of these jobs are consequences of scale,
| and exist to support it.
|
| For example, you don't need any of the management jobs until
| you've hired enough people that you have to manage them. You
| don't need to do sales and customer management jobs when you
| have no sales and no customers. Etc.
|
| Of the job titles that remain, these are all specializations.
| The projection of the work that you'll be doing onto any of the
| roles will be so small, that there's no point in even
| identifying it. E.g. you're not really doing "Dev Ops/Infra" if
| your project is running on a single server in whichever cloud
| you had the most free credits for.
|
| For a indie one-person SaaS, this list is useful only as an
| identification of broad areas of concern. I wouldn't even try
| to read anything from relative number of any type of positions
| - jobs don't scale at the same rate. E.g. sales workload may
| grow faster than dev workload in B2C, the opposite in B2B.
| brianwawok wrote:
| I think the days of being a 1 man show are easier compared
| current world of ~12 person team. Communication is instant.
|
| Next time may just stay a 1-man show, tempeting for sure.
| rhizome wrote:
| I think there's room for (i.e. I think I'd read) an
| IndieHackers type site that focuses on one-man armies! Like
| IH has done in the past couple years you'd probably have to
| expand it, but even including <5ppl companies might still
| place a lot of success stories within arm's reach of OMA
| ambitions.
| hectormalot wrote:
| I know it's close to the truth, but it still feels weird that
| this hypothetical 50 FTE SaaS company has 2x the amount of
| sales/CSM folks vs technical profile. And that the whole product
| is in the hands of 6 devs (4x FE and 2x BE).
| jcims wrote:
| I used to think that as well, but sales doesnt scale like
| engineering, and their priorities provide a good counterbalance
| to engineering and even product priorities.
|
| The thing that I thought was broken about it is the bread first
| strategy. I would think it would be better to focus on a
| segment of the market until they start getting momentum. Many
| products we see that are targeted at smaller companies are
| going to be wholly unacceptable to large enterprises.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| It's often a much bigger lift to get people to _adopt_ your
| product than it is to make the product itself, especially now
| when so many SaaS markets are either captured by large players
| or, conversely, hypercompetitive.
| rasengan wrote:
| This is an example of how to cargo cult.
| jwr wrote:
| This is so fun to read as the solo founder (and the only
| employee) of a self-funded (bootstrapped) SaaS business :-)
| fighterpilot wrote:
| Any good learning material you can point me towards that you
| found useful on your journey? I'd appreciate anything.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| It's really interesting how AAR scales per employee. The larger
| you are, better the ratio -- this helps explain why large
| companies can afford to pay so much more for top-level employees
| than small ones.
|
| I'm sure this seems obvious to some, but I'm not enough of a
| business/finance person to have really thought about this before.
| It helps crystallize some dynamics between, for example, my
| current employer and my immediately former employer; the former
| is able to pay dramatically more (around 150% on salary, plus
| equity) for essentially the same work, and gets more and higher
| quality talent as a result.
|
| I wonder how a smaller org can escape this problem, if at all.
| ec109685 wrote:
| A growing company doesn't need to be profitable, so there's no
| reason an engineer shouldn't be compensated at market rate
| ever.
| Silhouette wrote:
| A growing company with investors happy to throw away large
| amounts of money for years in case they end up with a unicorn
| doesn't need to be profitable.
|
| A growing company that was bootstrapped and is trying to make
| something actually worth selling in order to fund further
| growth is an entirely different situation.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| That might be true for startups, but my former employer is a
| 20+ year old established company with a specific niche.
| Growth is limited, but business is stable and profitable.
| It's a different mindset.
| pm90 wrote:
| In that case it sounds like they have found product market
| fit and are mostly content with the way the business is
| growing and likely don't need the kind of "top talent" that
| you offer. They're ok with "mediocre talent" since talent
| isn't enabling growth or survival.
|
| The market is pretty brutal but I've seen many extremely
| talented folks work at mediocre organizations because of
| reasons other than financial. I guess everyone is happy
| with the arrangement.
| ivraatiems wrote:
| You'd think and hope so. To be honest, I think they're
| trying to have their cake and eat it too - that's part of
| why I left. They wanted to grow and had all these
| strategies for doing so, but not nearly the resources to
| do it, and were unwilling to invest in getting more of
| them. We got a lot done with a little, but there were
| clear limitations.
|
| It was an outlook I never quite understood. The core
| business was and is strong, reliably profitable and has
| made plenty of people quite wealthy and employed dozens
| more gainfully. Why mess with that success? What's in it
| for them? What's the point of (fake numbers) $100m in
| sales vs $50m when it comes to our 70-person company and
| small number of private, non-institutional owners?
|
| But I am, of course, not the one who makes such
| decisions.
| cm2012 wrote:
| So, most people reading this aren't looking for the marketing
| section. But I wanted to point something out I see all the time.
| Take a look at the roles under CMO at a 125 person company:
|
| --
|
| _CMO (15)_
|
| Director, Product Marketing, plus 3 PMMs (4)
|
| Director, Demand Gen, plus 3 marketers (4)
|
| Director, Sales Enablement, plus 2 marketers (3)
|
| Director, Brand Marketing (3)
|
| PR & Analyst Relations (1-2)
|
| Events/Community (1)
|
| --
|
| What I posit is that Product Marketing is useless as a position
| and should be eliminated most of the time.
|
| The role ends up being: - Jane Doe is the Product Marketer for
| product X. She's responsible for growing it as much as possible.
| - She works with Anne X. in demand gen to make ads to promote the
| product to new customers. - She works with Hillary Y. in email
| marketing to cross promote to existing customers - She works with
| tech to do landing page/funnel testing.
|
| However what I find is that the role just adds friction and
| useless tests to show value. Let the subject matter experts (in
| demand gen, email, website testing) create the plan for each
| product holistically. Product Marketers are dead weight 80% of
| the time.
|
| I would only say this anonymously but its true. Source: I'm a
| marketing consultant that has worked with dozens of fast growing
| SaaS companies.
| jollybean wrote:
| I'm sorry I think you've confused the Product Marketing role
| with something else.
|
| PM's role is not to run campaigns, either brand or 'demand
| gen'.
|
| That's regular operational marketing.
|
| Product Marketing's job is to define the Product for the
| appropriate segments in terms of messaging, features, pricing.
| Then, outbound, they will provide the overall strategy for the
| various campaigns.
|
| So part 1: They know the market well. Who uses it, why, what
| their needs are. They'll sit in on sales calls i.e. should be
| one of the primary conduits into the company from them. They'll
| do market research, understanding pricing trends. They'll
| generally do some kind of segmentation, even if crude.
|
| Part 2: Direct product activities in this regard i.e. 'Each
| nation has different regulatory apparatus re: this feature so
| we need to break it down'. Or, even though our software has
| nothing to do with security, this specific issue is a problem
| and we need to have XYZ feature even if it's perfunctory.
|
| Part 3: For everything outbound, they'll be setting the
| messaging and the strategy. 'What groups are we targeting' and
| 'What those groups need to hear'. Probably putting together the
| 'baseline copy' and materials.
|
| The 'Marketing Ops' shouldn't be making a whole lot of those
| decisions on their own. They should be taking that from the PM
| and then deciding which channels to push their budget into.
|
| There's quite a lot of overlap in terms of customer
| relationship and product features, as the Product Manager also
| does this, but I usually think of PM's as satisfying satisfying
| specific customer requests, having a broader vision for the
| architecture that goes beyond any segment needs.
|
| The Product Marketing team is the one that says 'We'll be
| selling in 5 tranches with these features at this price'. The
| Product Manager cares less about that deliniation and more
| about the product as whole including internal architecture.
| redwood wrote:
| The line between product management and product marketing is
| definitely a gray zone and really depends on the
| organization, but rather than saying product managers are
| more focused in the architecture I think a fundamental
| difference is that they tend to be working much more closely
| with the engineers via a constant back-and-forth developing a
| shared understanding of what's possible, trade-offs, roadmap
| planning etc. Pricing is another one that in some
| organizations is product management led and in others product
| marketing.
| kchl wrote:
| I see in your profile that you focus on Facebook and Google
| ads. If this is your context for product marketing, it's
| totally understandable to see them as dead weight. If you're
| meeting with B2B product marketers for paid display ads, you're
| already dealing with a dysfunctional marketing org (perhaps
| part of why they brought you in as a consultant!).
|
| In an ideal world, demand gen and content already have
| messaging guidance, target segments and titles and their pain
| points from product marketing (and field marketing for regional
| guidance), and can just run with it except for perhaps a once
| over from product marketing on some initial copy for accuracy
| or tone. Otherwise, product marketing has their hands full
| researching customers along side PMs, writing more specialized
| content that's harder to outsource, or building and delivering
| sales enablement. Essentially, they're making sure you're
| targeting the right folks at the right time, prepping sales dev
| to receive those folks, and working with sales on scalable
| motions to close them. There's no reason product marketing
| should be weighing in on the nuances of how demand gen is being
| executed.
|
| Short version: there's lots of facets to marketing, a good org
| keeps people focused where they're needed based on their
| expertise.
| redwood wrote:
| Product marketing is an essential role for centralizing
| outbound go-to-market strategy, not only in terms of
| positioning for the outside world but also in terms of keeping
| sellers, marketers, and execs aligned.
|
| I suspect these particular areas in which you feel they are at
| deadweight may be missing much of their focus or you've
| experienced an organization that is misusing this role.
| catillac wrote:
| What does this look pike for an org that is primarily providing
| SaaS products via ML? i.e. how much to r&d, model dev, data
| cleaning, etc.
| hectormalot wrote:
| I suppose it is similar, but you'll likely need more people per
| client to make it work. In my experience SaaS software is much
| easier to scale than SaaS ML. (See also:
| https://a16z.com/2020/02/16/the-new-business-of-ai-and-how-i...
| )
|
| On the ML side you probably have more people working on data
| gathering/cleaning/client specific tweaks than actual modeling.
| (Practically, I'd say is 80%-20% at best in the projects we do
| at work).
| catillac wrote:
| How much time realistically can go into client agnostic work
| versus client specific work?
| TenJack wrote:
| So only two back end devs for 50 person series A?
| deanCommie wrote:
| This is silly. Of course I understand that because of scaling a
| 50-person org will have one "technical leader" who is, by
| definition, the CTO, and they might only have 12 reports.
|
| But you don't now need to introduce additional abstractions when
| you go from 50 to 125. Why introduce a VP of engineering? Can the
| CTO not handle 3 extra director reports (4 if you add a
| "director" of QA with 2 reports?) Come on. Who is going to come
| on to be the "VP of engineering" for a startup, yet not have/want
| oversight for Security, Analytics, and Infrastructure?
|
| Also in the 50 person startup, the product lead with 5 reports is
| a "Director" but a product lead with 11 reports is a "VP"? Get
| outta here, this is silly. It's the exact same role. It is NOT
| more scope or oversight.
|
| There should be orders of magnitude size growths before you start
| overthinking the difference between a director and a VP, or
| introducing new layers.
| jollybean wrote:
| A 40 person Eng. Org. is not going to be led by one person with
| a bunch of direct reports.
|
| IT and Eng. roles will probably be sub divided.
|
| Instead of a VP it might be possible to have just a manager or
| director, but it depends on the seniority of the people you're
| bringing in.
|
| The CTO's job is not just downward focus, they have strategic
| things to to.
|
| A few titles could be mushed around but it's just about right.
|
| For the VP product with only 11 reports - that's a staff
| position, it doesn't have to imply a lot of headcount.
|
| You might have a Colonel in charge of an entire Regiment of
| Soldiers, but another Colonel in charge of a much smaller
| detachment of Medics, or Intel, Communications, or even just a
| Chief of Staff etc..
|
| Aside from handing out VP roles to possibly people that are too
| young or inexperienced, the 'tree' itself is just about right.
| formatjam wrote:
| Maybe?
|
| "technical leader" for a 0-50 org is VERY different job than
| >100 org.
|
| The CTO is probably very good at 0-1 type of start up work, and
| probably a cofounder and inexperienced eng leader.
|
| But a experienced VP of eng is required to build teams and
| process later on. But usually those VP of eng are not good at
| building startups from the ground up.
|
| So the solution here is either: - fire the CTO co-founder and
| replace them with a VP of eng type of talents - hire VP of eng
| and let the cofounder CTO focus on other works
|
| I have seen both happened before.
| thinkingkong wrote:
| Another way to think about this is ratios of budgets to
| departments, ratios of "core" vs "experimental" spend, and ratios
| of IC's to managers. If you map those constraints out for the
| system that you're building you can tailor things a little more
| to your business while making intelligent trade-offs.
| keewee7 wrote:
| Is it typical for a 50 employee SaaS organization to only have 2
| backend developers?
| burlesona wrote:
| Not in my experience. But it varies a _lot_ depending on the
| product.
| motohagiography wrote:
| Gem of an article. Question/opinion though:
|
| The CEO seems to manage the CPO & CTO relationship in these
| models as well, which seems like a risk given a CEO's value is
| investor and market / key customer facing, and any time they
| spend on managing the peers in the CPO/CTO relationship is
| opportunity cost against that value.
|
| It also means the CPO & CTO as peers will be jockying for the
| CEO's attention as a deciding factor, which seems like
| unnecessary friction. The CPO's key relationships are to the
| board and supporting the CEO activities and sales key accounts
| with strategic feature alignment that may include M&A.
|
| The CTO's key relationships are outward with technology partners,
| suppliers, vendors, etc. and downward in the org. A CTO should be
| a partnership with a COO role, as they are solving scale and
| optimization problems together.
|
| All that is to say, depending on org maturity, I don't think
| CTO/CPO should be peers under the CEO. IMO one of the CPO/CTO
| should report to the other, as otherwise you're going to get
| unproductive running battles between them that cost CEO time. If
| you have this model and are wondering why your staff aren't
| working well together, it's you.
|
| This is why it can be useful to keep a founder around as a
| facilitator with convening power, provided they aren't too
| marginalized or a loose cannon. That said, I've only consulted to
| orgs like this and see it across them, and this is not the view
| of a CEO.
| ryanSrich wrote:
| Series A feels top heavy to me. Having a director or VP of
| Product at that point feels like a mistake. I also think you
| could do more delegating under the CTO. 12 reports is too much.
| [deleted]
| synergy20 wrote:
| very insightful, would like a version for before-round-A
| startups.
|
| By the point when you got round-A, you have already passed the
| most difficult time for a startup: to survive from bootstrap or
| angel-fund to round-A.
|
| the key is actually how to get angel-fund or bootstrap so you can
| reach to round-A, instead of being those 95% failed to launch
| ones and never saw the light.
| alberth wrote:
| It should be noted this was authored by David Sacks, of
| PayPal/Yammer/etc fame.
| daigoba66 wrote:
| Can some explain to me what 25-50+ engineers do all day at these
| startups?
|
| My experience is probably skewed, mostly working for SaaS
| companies providing enterprise B2B software, but the product and
| engineering team represents only 15-20% of the headcount - the
| customer success team is often 2-3x larger.
| abcdememomi wrote:
| They will spend time overengineering things because they will
| get bored due to lack of meaningful work required from them, or
| have 7 hours per day of meetings
| JaggerFoo wrote:
| I would of liked to see series X funding ranges and period ranges
| along with the charts to make more sense of the org charts.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| I fully expected this to be satire. Surely this is all subject to
| change based on the backgrounds of founders and early employees,
| industry, funding goals and sources, etc.
| xondono wrote:
| Interesting examples, but starting at 50 employees sounds a
| little bit extreme to me.
|
| I also find way more insightful how you get from x founders to 50
| employees than from then on.
| monocasa wrote:
| Yeah, the only way this chart makes sense to me is as "what's
| your target for using your series X money" rather than "where
| you should be when you get your series X money".
| zilchers wrote:
| The terminology around seed vs a vs b is so skewed right now, but
| a 50 person series a startup, just estimating, is a 5 mil per
| year burn. Hard to say exactly the raise, but personally I'd be
| uncomfortable with less than 3 years runway, so let's call it a
| 12mil raise. 12 mil raise for 25% of the company (again, totally
| back of the napkin here) puts us at basically 50mil valuation. 50
| mil valuation on 1mil ARR seems way high to me, basically this
| all seems sort of shifted left on the headcount side (series b
| should be 50 people) and right on the revenue side.
| H8crilA wrote:
| It's so funny when a CEO or a CTO or a VP has 20-50 people
| reporting to him/her :). This is barely getting outside of the
| "manager" rank in a proper corporation.
| ahtihn wrote:
| Anyone who has more than 20 direct reports isn't managing them
| properly. I'd say 15 is already on the high side.
|
| I'd be very surprised if a CEO at any large company has more
| than 50 direct reports.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| Parent comment is taking about total reports including
| indirect
| smoldesu wrote:
| It scares me to think that there's some capital-backed, likely
| nervous 20-something, reading this on their iPhone with shaky
| hands before screenshotting it and shipping it off to Glassdoor.
| Your company should be so much more than this, even an example
| that you find online for guidance.
|
| Cargo-cult leadership might be the demise of the modern SaaS/VC
| workflow.
| whall6 wrote:
| I think this is stupid. Building a business shouldn't be about
| hiring people to fit some platonic form of a company.
|
| You should hire people based on a market need for that role.
| While I agree that this is the org chart that most often
| organically arises, it's not because CEOs read this article on
| sub stack.
|
| This is about as useful of information as telling me how to
| decorate my office space when I have a 50 person company.
| spoonjim wrote:
| I know this guy has a track record but not sure why you'd only
| have 12 engineers and 5 PMs in a 50 person company. Do you really
| need the Finance stuff? Why not just engineering and sales?
| brianwawok wrote:
| I don't think you can ignore stuff like marketing at 50 person
| scale. But I assume you can wiggle some of the team sizes,
| especially if you outsource some roles that aren't your core
| business.
| dgudkov wrote:
| >At IPO (average) $100,000 of ARR per employee
|
| So it's for companies that aren't profitable even at IPO. Not my
| cup of tea.
| rokkit wrote:
| Why do the number of front end devs exceed the back end? Does
| anyone else see a problem here? Front end effort has always been
| a fraction of back end effort on the systems I've developed. If
| that's not the case, I can only hypothesize it's because front
| end toolchains have gotten overly complex for what they
| accomplish. Not only that, but I would posit that for most SaaS
| ventures, the back end is where the differentiation and value is
| delivered, so that is where the bulk of dev resources should be
| deployed.
| granshaw wrote:
| The standard of polish that users expect has gone up a lot. The
| Front end is what users actually interact with, to them it
| might as well be your entire stack
| matteovh wrote:
| Backend dev has basically become CRUD API development whereas
| products end up being differentiated by brand and UX polish.
| gedy wrote:
| Of the consumer/Enterprise SaaS companies I've worked with,
| many devs who say they are doing "backend" are just writing
| controllers and APIs specifically for front end/UI consumption.
|
| A lot of places have combined that work into same stack/JS and
| call it "frontend".
| jot wrote:
| I'm not cut out for VC track businesses.
|
| - $25K ARR per person with >40 employees.
|
| - $50K ARR per person with >100 employees.
|
| - $100K ARR per person with >1,000 employees.
|
| There are plenty of independent SaaS businesses that make it past
| $200K ARR per person with teams of <10.
| [deleted]
| SOLAR_FIELDS wrote:
| Well, when we consider that VC funding is usually trending
| towards a model of hyper growth, it becomes fairly
| straightforward to see that the model leans towards throwing
| people at the problem to make it grow faster. I do think it
| would be interesting to see a study comparing growth rates of
| companies comparing to number of employees as (educated guess
| here) operating with that many employees that quickly is going
| to result in a number of inefficiencies.
| rhizome wrote:
| I wonder if "VC funding" lives in a space between old-style
| business development and hierarchy, vs. new-style revenue
| expectations. We get middle-heavy startups (backbiting
| optional) trying to cover zillion dollar AWS bills by
| perpetually pretending they're on the verge of a Google-up.
| This is why they need $50MM rather than 1/10th that.
| [deleted]
| julee04 wrote:
| If anyone is interested in what a typical SaaS sales org chart
| looks like, here is a good example: https://www.saasae.com/levels
| exdsq wrote:
| Is this actually based on anything?
| davidivadavid wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_O._Sacks
| ndr wrote:
| No one ever needs legal? No one doing privacy & compliance work
| in-house for a SaaS with hundreds of employees?
| Silhouette wrote:
| Perhaps even lawyers don't want to deal with that many
| buzzwords and contrived management positions?
|
| Though the final scenario with hundreds of employees does
| feature a General Counsel as the final entry in the chart.
| NiceWayToDoIT wrote:
| I don't get this either, even with 50 you would have a someone
| with corporate law experience and 400 ?! What am I missing, is
| one of the top management people at the same time lawyer, or
| they are on case paid bases?
| abcdememomi wrote:
| These "blueprint" charts are so harmful.
|
| People that doesn't understand what some position even are trust
| this kind of things and hire a lot of people for the sake of it.
|
| Measuring growth in headcount is disfunctional and just bad. I've
| seen many of startups hiring tens on engineers because they can,
| and to show "growth" to the outside world, not because they added
| any value
| k__ wrote:
| _" You need to hire rapidly to seize the opportunity."_
|
| What does this mean? I had the impression employees are a
| liability.
| devops000 wrote:
| $20-$100,000 of ARR per employee means profits < 0 until IPO.
| Does it make sense?
| jxf wrote:
| Two remarks:
|
| * This feels way too hierarchical for the size -- there's
| significant distance from many employees and the CEO even at
| small sizes.
|
| * Could not disagree more with putting HR and Ops under the CFO
| (even in a 50-person company). That's a surefire way to have a
| neglected HR/people function.
| burlesona wrote:
| At 50 people everyone is still within 1 skip-level of the CEO.
| That doesn't seem overly hierarchical to me.
|
| What does seem a little surprising is how many "chiefs" the CEO
| has reporting to them. In my experience with companies around
| 50 people, things actually tend to not be sliced into so many
| pieces, but rather there are a few larger slices that are
| functionally heterogeneous.
| ryanSrich wrote:
| I think the three machines approach works best for companies
| 0-100 people (depending on the company, for SaaS it makes
| sense).
|
| Basically have someone own:
|
| 1. The product - CTO
|
| 2. The customer - (Could be a director or VP of
| marketing/sales/rev)
|
| 3. The company - CEO
|
| Anything beyond those three execs at or around an A round is
| nuts to me.
|
| I think a lot of people underestimate just how much you can
| outsource at that size. There almost no reason to have a COO
| when you're less than 100 people. Same with a CFO. Either of
| those hires don't become strategic until you're doing $10+m
| in rev. Until then, use other SaaS services for payroll, book
| keeping, tax savings (MainStreet), etc. These take little
| effort use and can be setup by one of the founders in less
| than a day.
| paulddraper wrote:
| You're proposing a 100 person SaaS company without any
| sales or marketing exec?
|
| This is HN I suppose, so not entirely surprising.
| ryanSrich wrote:
| It's literally the second bullet point in my comment. Did
| you miss it?
| paulddraper wrote:
| Oh I misread that as Customer Success, but you meant
| Sales and Marketing.
|
| I still think you're going to be light with 100 people
| and no dedicated VP of Product or VP of Customer Success.
|
| But not absurdly so
| ryanSrich wrote:
| Ah, yeah when I say someone should own the customer, I
| mean you should have an exec dedicated to finding,
| closing, and keeping customers.
|
| One slight contention here is who owns the keeping part.
| I've seen that under both sales and product, and don't
| have strong convictions either way. I think it mostly
| depends on the type of product you're selling.
| mberning wrote:
| Absolutely agree. It feels like the have a C level just to have
| it. Not only is that not going to be cost effective (C level
| titles expect C level comp) but it is setting you up for a lot
| of left hand/right hand issues even at a small size where that
| definitely should not be happening. Having worked in large orgs
| with 10+ levels it is a nightmare in the making.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-25 23:00 UTC)