 Hello, everyone. Hi. OK, maybe before we start, I always say that this is the most important slice because it will have the link to all the slides. Because I will reference some other blocks and other more research than the other people. So if you're interested to look into it, you can get a whole slide deck. You don't have to take pictures or anything like that. So also, yeah, this talk is quite relaxed, interactive. So when I ask you a question, you have to feel free to just shout out from your seat. Well, if it's a question, maybe wait until the end so we can give you a mic. But if it's just like a pop-up question, you can shout from your seat. It doesn't matter. So let's get started. Sorry, are we ready? OK, no worries. You see, you can shout. It's fine. Yes, of course. Is everybody OK? Just let me know if you haven't got the link to the slice. Right, OK, we go good. Ready, buckle up. OK, good. So yeah, maybe I should read the titles to give you more time. Rereaucracy versus doocracy. So moist doocracy, maybe it's a new term for you and I'll explain a little bit. But before that, I want to ask you a question. Who has been involved in an open source project? You can show me your hands. Yes, most of you, all of you, OK, good. So what's your role in it? Sorry? Managing, wow, that's a good role. What else? Fundraising. Fundraising? Translation. Translation, wow, that's also a very important role. What else? Developer location. Well, that's the first time I heard about it. OK, cool. So yeah, we all kind of involve in open source project a little bit, so that's why we all care about how open source is governance. But before that, I want to tell you that I also care about open source. I contributed to open source project. In the past, I still contribute in other forms. I love organizing events. For example, there's one way of contributing. I'm also the director and fellow of the Python Software Foundation. And right now, I work in the amazing OpenSSF as the community manager. So what is OpenSSF? So we are here because we are part of Linux Foundation. Yesterday, we just have our OpenSSF day. We have a lot of folks to share the insight about open source security. That's great. So we have newsletter and blogs, which welcome everybody to sign up. We also have free courses. So if you are a developer, you care about security, then maybe check that out. So why open source governance is different? Why we talk about it kind of subversely? We say, oh, maybe for you, if you work in a company, if you have worked in a company before, you're kind of familiar with governance in a company, right? You say, oh, I have a boss. I have a manager. And usually maybe they will have their boss. And then at the end, maybe they'll be CEO or the owner of the company or the board of directors or like this, like, I think it's not alien for people about how maybe a company work. But open source is different. So I compare open source with proprietary software, which is usually like a software that is commercial that's offered by a company. So, you know, so proprietary owned by an individual, sometimes just one person or a business or sometimes it's an organization. It's very hard to tell, like, because if they are not making a profit then they're just an organization. But open source, what is open source? Open source, like sometimes, you know, we have a project that maybe started by one person or a group of people. But they're kind of the owner of the project, but maybe time evolves, like maybe they, you know, transfer their project to another ownership or they are like, OK, maybe they kind of, because the project's too big, they take a step back, they don't write every single line of code of that project. There will be people who contribute. Sometimes there's like some community member contribute a lot to that, you know, software then who really actually own that software, right? And open source, a lot of work, like I said, is done by volunteers. So it's like, we can't say that, you know, that, OK, we're like the owners write all the code. But for proprietary software, since it's owned by business, usually like they will hire staff to write it. So if I knew hire staff, you probably will have an employment contract that all the code that they write in their work time is actually belongs to the company. So, well, that's why there's also the clear ownership. So these will be the engineers who work for the company, who is not a volunteer, they got paid. Otherwise, nobody's got to do free work. So in open source, there are some kind of hierarchy. You sometimes, most of the time, you'll have like some people, they will have the right access to the repos, or they will be sometimes called maintainer, or the owner, or actually they're the leader of that project. But it's not really rigid because it depends on each project. They may have different governance. For the bigger project, they may have maybe have a steering console, which is a group of people who made the ultimate decision for the project. But for some smaller project, it may be just like they only have one maintainer and that person will be in charge of everything. So they can say yes or no to everything. For proprietary software, companies are like I said before, everybody kind of understand the hierarchy of a company. It's very clear, you know who is your boss. You know who is actually making all the decisions for the company. So that's actually very clear. For open source, there's less commitment because they're all volunteers, they can come and go. When they have time, they can contribute, and they are busy with other aspects of their life, they could take a post, they could just take some time off without actually applying for time off. But if you have staff, if you work, you know, you're writing code for proprietary software, then because you're hired, you have commitments that you have agreed with that company. So it's a constant responsibility. So if you want to take time off, you have to apply for it. You can't just like, okay, I'm busy, I'm not going to do this now. You can't just like, oh, I want to take a month off because I am a bit busy, you know, you can't do that. So yeah, so that's a different kind of structure here. So open source, a lot of time is user-driven. So a lot of time, how a project evolved depends on a user who may actually be contributing themselves. There may be forums that people discuss, oh, actually, I wish this feature could be implemented, then it will be much easier for my use case. Then people may agree or disagree or they have other opinion or stuff or can, you know, they have discussion. For proprietary software, it's mainly profit-driven. Users also have a say by not buying the, you know, the software or stopping the subscription. But at the end of the day, how a proprietary software company made the decision of what to do or what not to do, they will think about, oh, whether people will like it and spend money on it. So that is profit-driven. So now let's talk about my bureaucracy, how it kind of applies in open source. So I look it up because English is not my first language. So I was like, okay, I heard it a lot. I kind of know what it is, but let's consult a dictionary online. So I look it up and it said that, oh, it's actually a governance followed by the power of people selected according to merit. So I guess this is coming up because it's a kind of a reflection of, for example, like a herocracy, which is, you know, oh, if you, let's say if you're born a royal, then you will have the power, right? Or let's say, for example, again, like comparing open source to a kind of company, commercial company kind of structure, who is leading the company will be maybe the owner or maybe the owner, they hire a CEO who make all the decisions. That's not really people are elected them to do it, right? Merocracy is more like kind of like, for example, like our government work, you know, we have elections. So you can choose who is leading the government or something like that. So that's actually a kind of, born out of, oh, we want something different. So we have a bureaucracy instead. So, yeah, so that's like, and also there's a line here, which I will quote again later is, you know, everyone with skills and imagination can aspire to reach the highest level. So that's the example of bureaucracy, like, okay. Yeah, so everybody can be the leader if you are good. So that's basically what it means. So in open source, there's a lot of cases that bureaucracy is applied. I would say this is like the rise of the BDFL. So imagine now we'll be back like maybe 20, 30 years back in history, back in time, when open source is a new thing. So there are like very smart developers that they are, that they was like, oh, I don't want to be told what to do by the owner of the company who may not know what's the best for that software. So yeah, so maybe they will start their own creating own software and then that's come from there. And BDFL, who haven't heard of this term BDFL? Oh, okay, that's good. So what is BDFL? So BDFL is short for Benevolent Dictator for Life. When I heard about that term, I was like, it's a bit oxymoron, isn't it? Like how can you be a dictator and benevolent? So I was like, but actually they, well, they choose this term because it used to describe a small number of open source software development leaders who actually they have created something maybe usually at the beginning with very less help. So they're basically like a one man band or one person band that own the project. But then they give it, open source give it to everybody to use. So that's why there's like this dictator and benevolent kind of contradiction there. But actually it's not a contradiction. It's describing how this leadership in open source work. So this small number of people who started something that maybe become quite big this day and everybody uses and because this open source is a free gift for everybody. So that's why they also get this benevolent title here. Can you name a few of them? Anyone? Anyone? Maybe you have seen one this morning. Yeah, yes, yes. So yeah, so leaders, of course, like he created Linux which everybody use, everybody love. So I would say that he's a benevolent dictator. Well, maybe he's not like dictating now but he did actually create something that is amazing and everybody use. So this term like is more emphasis on highlighting the excellence contribution to the open source system. And where lots of developers are inspired by them, they may want to, oh, I want to create an open source project that is used by many people. I was one of those people who was like, oh, maybe I can create but I'm too far from it right now. But I was actually when I was just like learning or this like coding and stuff. I was inspired that, oh, it's so cool. Everybody can create something and share with people. Or maybe I can create something and share with people and that's the inspiration. But when I look at it online or like do some research, it's very hard to find women or people of color who bear this title that like in my point of view, I have met a lot of amazing women or people of color or people are not like your generic programmer type that I think I'm inspired by them. I think that I learn a lot from them. I want to be like them but they are not like a company known as BDFL. So that's the difference here then. I feel a little bit, that's why I also feel that, oh, I'm very hard from that goal. I'm very far away from that goal because I am a woman. And so maybe it's very hard for me to reach that. In my bureaucracy, so what we do is that, so this is how I sum it up myself, right? We believe in elites. We think that, oh, who is good can lead us to a better place, right? We trust them, they are the best people because we elect them, right? We choose them. So we trust them that they will do the best for us. They know how to do the best for us. And we think that they are the, you know, who are just out of us. We just choose who is the best. They can be the leader, right? So again, like I quoted again, and everyone with the skills and imagination may aspire to reach the highest level. So it seems like everybody can get a chance to be there, right? You just have to be good. You just have to be good. Then you can be a BDFL or someone who is the best and leading the whole community. But is everybody given the same resources and opportunity to reach that level? It's a thing that I reflect on a lot of times because like I said, why there isn't a lot of BDFL that looks like me, a lot of them that doesn't look like me. So I want to tell you a story about my friend, Marlene here. I put her face here, she's like so, you know, happy and I feel a lot inspired by her. So she is, she's from Zimbabwe. She's a software engineer. And she's also the previous director and vice chair of the Python Software Foundation. So it's kind of like, you know, she is kind of my senpai, you know, she was the director of the Python Software Foundation. She founded a symbol pie, which is a nonprofit that helps in women, in tech, especially young women. So, oh, by the way, I use a lot of women as an example in my presentation. It's an example. It also, I hope the general kind of, you know, reasons also apply for other underrepresented groups. But because I'm a woman, I relate to, you know, being a woman, so that's why I use them as an example. But if you, you know, I'm not saying that it's limited to women. So I just want to clarify that upfront. So, so why I tell you about Marlene. So, months ago, she gave a keynote at Python Italy and in Python Italy, so after a keynote, we should talk about diversity and inclusion. I really enjoy that keynote, it's really good. But then a male Italian, well, I tell from his accent, but, you know, I hope I get that right. I'm not like, you know, kind of, oh, you speak Italian, that's why you're Italian. But maybe he's a male Italian developer. So he asked, oh, I don't see how we are different, right? So he's talking to Marlene, I don't see how we're different. I, in, he said that in his eyes, he see them as equal. And so why, you know, we have to put effort in diversity and inclusion in it. So, so for me, like, I remember I was sitting at the front with a few friends. We are all like kind of women in the community and we go like, you know, crutching our fists. It's like, wow, this is a really challenging question. And, you know, and so it deep down inside us, it makes us feel a little bit angry. But we can't, I can't tell you why, but like, I feel a little bit angry, but I can't tell why. But Marlene give a really good answer. It kind of defuse the bomb. It explains everything very clearly. It kind of, you know, these uneasiness in us, like she kind of explained very well out there. So this is what she said. Not exactly her quote, but I'm trying to summarize. So she said that we are not given the same access to resources. So she said that when she was young, she don't have an access to computer. She only start having like, you know, kind of using computer and do some programming when she was studying in university when she was 20. So she said, compared to you, she did not grow up in an environment that was supporting her career as a software developer. So at that time, I was like, suddenly I realized that, oh, actually I was the lucky one because I was lucky that my dad is a computer geek. And so we have computer at home. So when I was young, while all my classmates doesn't have a computer at home, I do have a computer. So I was the lucky one compared to Marlene. I also think that, oh, yes. Actually, you know, that's the difference. That's how we can't assume everybody get the same chance to be good, right? We are not on the same level playing field. I think a lot of times when I explain to people, so some people sometimes like, you know, I feel like everybody can be an airline. It's just that they need to understand, you know, because, you know, how to let them understand and step into our shoes and see, oh, how a woman in the tech community feels. Sometimes, you know, you just need time to explain on that. So it's not about one's ability. It's not like, so maybe that question from that Italian developer, like, he's on a good intention, saying like, oh, I don't see that ability-wise. We are different, right? But there are differences on other aspects. For example, social expectation. So, for example, again, I was lucky in some aspect, but I was also like a girl who grew up in Hong Kong in the East Asian culture. So in my culture, when I grow up, it's like girls are not encouraged to study, you know, STEM subjects, science, engineering, computer science, those are boys' subjects. So yeah, social expectation nobody inspired you to become a developer. No one inspired you to be good at that view. Also access to resources, I'm one of the lucky ones, but I can imagine, for example, my classmate who may be from a family that like, maybe not having a very high income, they would have very, you know, they don't have access to a computer at home. So at that time, I remember, there's like the government trying to improve the computer literacy of the general public. So you can go to a library and use a computer, but that's very limited, you know, those computer tend to be very dated. So imagine that if you grow up, the only way for you to play games or is to either during the computer class or go to a library, so that's very limiting. Compared to someone who is like as lucky as me that your family got a computer at home, you can access it whenever your parents give you permission, which is very convenient. So we are not giving the same opportunity. So even nowadays, I'm talking about, for example, I'm talking about when I was young, which is like 20 years ago, 20, some years ago, giving up my age now, but even nowadays, if you think about some countries, they may actually still, you know, when I do some workshops in an African country, sometimes they will bring a very dated laptop, they may have to share with someone because they don't have one. So imagine it's still a problem nowadays that not everyone were given the same opportunity that access to all these technology and things like that. So bureaucracy, it seems like you say that, oh, you don't have to be born in a royal family to have the power, you just have to get good and then you'll be the leader, but it's still not saying that everybody is equal, everybody is, you know, having the same opportunity. So will something else work? So recently I learned a term from my colleague that, oh, there's something called bureaucracy. What is it? This is like a funny name, right? Like you stick two words together, look, okay, let's have a look. So bureaucracy means that it's an organization structure that each person will choose their role, basically they put their hands up and volunteer themself and say, I can do it, I will do it, and then they got to do it, and nobody will say, oh, no, no, no, like, we have to make sure that you are the best person for that job, you know, it's not work that way. So an example in this blog post that, again, I found this definition from somewhere is the community wiki, so if you're interested, you can have a look later. So they use an example of like a group of friends, actually quite big group of friends are going for camping. So someone put their hands up in a mailing list, say, oh, let's cook together, and I will organize everything. So she did, but then if a new person joined, and he or she being a bit rude and say like, oh, but why she decided, she got to say, like, decide on what we eat and why we do it this way, why we all cook together and do this. And well, because she is the only person who volunteer herself to arrange the meal for everybody, nobody else say a thing or volunteer themselves, maybe someone, you know, if you are in that group, you can be like, oh, actually I want dessert, maybe I'll provide dessert, then you got to choose the dessert, right? So whoever put their hands up and volunteered themselves got to do it, like nobody say like, oh, for example, you're offered to bring some cake, nobody say, wait a second, I don't know if your cake is good, you know, nobody say that. So that's the bureaucracy, you know, governance or community model. So now, bureaucracy, right? You don't have to reach the highest level, you don't have to prove that you're the best person to arrange the food or make the cake or, you know, so we just let you do it. Everybody given a chance, so maybe you in charge of the cake, then maybe I can in charge of something else, maybe I can in charge of like, oh, I could make some salad, I don't know. So, you know, if you want to do it, then nobody's stopping you, you're given the chance to do it. There's no gatekeeping, you know, you don't have to do a taste test before we let you to prepare the cake or salad or anything for everybody. Is it good? So, is that a thing that we can use to, you know, remove all these like, inequality and bias in the bureaucracy model? Let's look deeper into it. I would say the open source is kind of bureaucracy, it's not absolute bureaucracy because there is always a case that you would come across that you think, yeah, I still haven't get the trust from the community, so I can't do it. There is the case like that, but open source is always some work to work, more work to work on. So, a lot of open source projects, you can see how many issues they have in there, GitHub or whatever, Ripple, that there's always some more work, even if it's not there, then if you offer your help, if you talk to someone, they may be like, oh, I think you can help this. I think you can help that. So, there's always something to work on. Or, if let's say you suggest this new feature and the community was like, no, we are not sure, we are not going to pull that in and stuff, well, you can derive your own project, you can make a clone and they're like, okay, I think that feature is essential, so I would make a clone, add that feature and see if people are using mine. It was kind of like, if you want to do it, you can do it, nobody's stopping you to clone it. And less gatekeeping, there's still some gatekeeping, like I said, sometimes like, for example, I want an incremental feature, you need to get the consensus, the agreement from the maintainer, from the user, there's still some gate, but compared to a proprietary software, which if you want to change a proprietary software, you either need to apply for a job in that company over that software, or you have to write a business proposal to convince the owner of the project to adopt your idea. So it's less gatekeeping, but it's open source, open to women. So this is a question that I have in my mind, and oops, sorry, I have it in my mind, and I think about it a lot, and I saw a very good analysis of it here in this. So this is, again, it's a blog post, there's a link there. So what they do is that they do a little bit of statistical analysis, they do it on GitHub, it may not take it with a grain of salt because not everything is on GitHub, not every contribution open source is on GitHub. So, but, well, GitHub is a popular place to put your project, so it's kind of like a general reflection of how it is. So the result is only 5.4% of the GitHub user who have over 10 contribution from the random sample are female. So what they do is that they use a tool to check the profile of the users or maybe they kind of check their social media to see if they put a pronoun, whatever. I don't know how it works, but you can dig into it. But they're using a tool to check, like, to identify whether that user is a male or female or other gender. So that's what they do, it's only 5.4% and they counted, there's an other number, I think it's around six for all the users who made a contribution, but this is like over 10 contributions. So anybody, I would say anybody make over 10 contribution are active contributors. So only 5.4% active contributor for any open source are female, so according to this study. So, wow, it's alarmingly low rate. So inside the article also mentioned one thing which I also resonate a lot, is the amount of women who joined the tech industry, 56% leave a mid-career, which is double the tuition wage for men. So imagine if you look at the industry, right? The more senior you go, the less women there will be because there's more women leaving than men. That's one women that I will mention later that she also kind of take a break from her career, but I can tell you a story later. But I want to tell you about the Python core devs because again, my background is in Python, so I'm very familiar with the community and so I think that I would tell you an example I'm familiar with, but it's not limited to Python. So Python core devs, who are the Python core devs? So they are defined as developer who have commit rights to the Python project, C Python project itself, which is the standard distributor of Python interpreter on GitHub. So who have the commit rights to that project? There are eight women in it. Do you know how many out of eight? Like how many, like out of how many there are eight? Any guess? No idea? Out of 87 active ones. So these are only the active ones. There's I think there's 120 something in the whole history of Python core devs. So it's less than 10%. Well, it's better than the 5.4, but still very, very no number. Why? Again, when I just started in the Python community, I was inspired to be a Python core dev. But then I was like, oh, look at that number. It's very hard, it's very hard for me. But the community is a bureaucracy community. Whenever I try to offer some help, there's always something to do. People will be like, oh, you can do this, you can do that, you know. There's a lot of issues. If you look at Python, there's a lot of issues. When you come to technical leadership, there's still a few women. Yeah, if you look at the number, I don't have to explain more on that. So why are there so few female core devs? So what it's lacking here. I noticed this because like we always, when we organize events, there's always like a panel that we invite some core devs or it's like, we always like, we don't want it to be an all male panel, but it's very hard because of this. So meet Marietta, this is my friend. Marietta is the first female Python core dev. So wow, one of that age and she's the first. And she's also the Python chair of 2023 to 2024. She has 10 years, 10 plus years experience in tech. So she's, in terms of merit, she is very high, right? She's highly technical, also lots of contribution to the community. So I asked her why there are few female core devs out there. I keep waking you up with my mic, sorry. Also there are a few points she mentioned. So maybe if you are women in tech, then maybe you resonate, if you're not maybe talk to someone who identifies women in tech. So a woman has to work very hard in a job to get recognition compared to their male peers. So like Lena said this morning, if you want to be achieving something in open source, you have to spend long and committed time for a contribution that could be outside of your job because a lot of company will let you spend time in your work hours to contribute to open source projects. So this is extremely hard when you have to sometimes maybe work extra hours in your job and then you have to work on top of that for open source project. It's even harder when you have families or Marietta she got two kids I was like, how can you manage? I don't know. So another factor is that there are COC enforcement there, the Code of Conduct Enforcement, make sure that it's a safe environment but still my aggression still happened. Those are instances that are very hard to report. It may be just like a attitude that is not very nice that it doesn't make you feel very welcoming but still it's not an absolute thing that you could report. So that's still a problem there. So what went wrong with DNI effort? Nowadays a lot of tech communities put effort in DNI but why? Why we still have problems? Why we are like still having this microaggression or maybe oh why there's still a few women in there? Anybody heard of this one? This treat, sorry it's a bit small but it's about a conference that has been discovered by this, I followed, he's a tech reporter, I follow him on Twitter or X whatever. So yeah, it's a tech conference that he discovered they don't do CFPs, they don't do cover proposals, they only invite speakers and all of the free women that they invite actually two of them are not actual person that's what this generalist discovered. So what had the problem here? Why people need to fake, fake female speaker profile? It's the first time I've heard of that. Is it because for some company or organization they think that diversity and inclusion is just a slogan, right? Or nowadays if you don't put diversity and inclusion in there you would get canceled or if you have like a all like cis white male speaker line up then you'll be called out, you know, you'll be put caught, you know, is it like that they're just, oh we have to do it because we got the pressure or they just like try to make the numbers look spreader. I suspect it's a thing that happened a lot in a lot of company when they write the report, diversity and inclusion report, they try to up the number, they try to maybe include some non-tech roles, employee us, you know, oh we have a lot of female in our company or we have a lot of like, you know, non-male in our company. Or so it's just, they would just want to make the number looks good but actually, for example, let's say, oh they don't do all this thing, it's like how many non-male developer out there but that counts all levels. So, you know, like I said, maybe the more senior you go the less women or less like a non-male developer there will be. This, I heard a lot, I've talked to some organizers, like why you can't find female keynote speaker and they will say like, well, I mean, we choose keynote speaker, you know, for their marriage. So, we just can't find enough women, there's not enough women out there that we think there's enough marriage. Which again, like I got angry sometimes when I heard this, these are excuse. This is like, you see the problem but you are just trying to, you know, not solve the problem and, you know, just use this excuse to let your, let it slide. They're just avoiding the fact, they're just trying to like, you know, ignore. They don't even ask for help, which is also like, again, make me angry. It's like, talk to me, I can try to help you, you know. What can we do? We have to acknowledge the problem. We don't, like, you know, oh, this picture, by the way, this picture is a, you know, I don't know if you know because I grew up in Hong Kong, there's what we say when you, there's a thief trying to steal the bell. So I was like, oh, if I touch the bell, it will ring. So I cover my ears, so I don't hear it, so it will be fine. Okay, so it's kind of like that, right? It's like, well, avoiding the problem, pretend that it's not there. So, acknowledge the problem is the first step. So it's the first step that we have to do it. We don't avoid it, we acknowledge it. We understand it, how to understand, talk to underrepresented folks. So a lot of times, like, again, like, I'm a woman, I can only resonate with the problem women are facing. But then maybe, for example, if I want to know someone, let's say someone with a disability, how, like, how tough they are. I don't know, I have to talk to them and, like, be honest and be humble and ask them how we can help you, how we can make it better for you, right? Effort to work on it. Again, like, it's an investment. You don't know, like, the return doesn't come immediately. You know, I've organized conference that we provide childcare, nobody was using it. We provide, like, human speech-to-text translation to help maybe folks who can't hear or, like, or can't understand English or to help, but you have to keep working on it, even though you don't see the results immediately. Continue, constant effort. It, you know, you can't just, like, try it once. It doesn't work. Let's give up, you know. No, you have to keep doing it. We go from a conference that, like, nobody used the childcare, we just provide it to now we have to book extra childcare because everybody's bringing the whole family there. They bring their kids, they bring their spouse, so the spouse can learn about tech and, wow, that's amazing. So we have to keep on doing that. Support those efforts. So if you, you know, you can support, you can, like, some financial support, you know, those accessibility things are not cheap, so financial support is a good support, but other support is also welcome as well, volunteer or, you know, anything. So I would call that suppro, supproquacy model, so support, I put the accuracy ideas of supproquacy model. So this is the model that I made up. I think we have to provide opportunity and support that underrepresented groups need to be successful in leadership and community. We can't just say, like, oh, come on, just get good, you'll be there, or like, oh, spend some time in it, just, you know, volunteer yourself, you have time, right, you have time. Not everybody have the same amount of time they can spare. So especially for underrepresented groups, we have to give them support if we want a diverse community. So this, again, is a picture I found from a book post. They mentioned all the things that we have been doing, or maybe we haven't been doing, but we can think of doing, for example, like code of conduct or empathize the group. For example, we have the diversity lunch that we just had for the women and non-binary folks. So that is like promote awareness of the presence of peers. So that's like one of the things that we have been doing it here. So there's also a lot of other things, some of them we are doing, some of them we can do better, some of them we can now start doing it. So you can have a deeper look in it. Last, I want to introduce you to this woman, Buanna. She is Indian. She actually was a former O'Reachy intern for, she's a former O'Reachy intern for Apache Airflow. So O'Reachy is an internship program that they pay, they get funding, and they pay these underrepresented folks to be working in open source projects. So she's still now, even though her intern finished, she's still an active contributor to Airflow, and that actually helped her to restart her career as a software engineer. She stopped her career because she feel that she is not catching up with her husband's career, even though they were both software engineers. So at some point she took a break, but O'Reachy and Apache for this project helped her to restart her career. So, kudos to that. And this is a few points I want to tell you to take home because I'm running out of time. So not everybody has the same access to resources. Remember that we have that. I acknowledge that and remember that. Pay developers in open source, not just the maintainers in all levels, like O'Reachy, pay some interns so they get the chance to learn and to be good. To provide education for those who have less access. Sometimes you have to give them to folks in other countries, maybe emphasize the success, put them on my presentation like this and provide a safe environment code of conduct for them. So, last thing, what shall we do? Maybe try support policy, maybe that's the way to do it. So thank you very much for this presentation. This is our last chance to grab the slide. So thank you.