 All right. Why don't we go ahead and get started. I know people are still joining us, but we've already got a lot of folks with us and there's plenty to get on to today. So welcome everybody. I'm Cliff Lynch. I'm the director of the Coalition for Networked Information, and I'd like to welcome you to the opening day of the virtual event that's part of our December 2021 member meeting. It's really great you're here. I'm delighted to see so many member reps, guests. One of the wonderful things about the virtual environment is that we have been able to be a bit more flexible about having additional folks from our member institutions join us. And so I welcome those folks as well, who are able to be with us. I'd like to extend a special welcome to our international guests. I suspect this may be one of the easiest international trips you've ever made. I think making international trips in person for the foreseeable future is going to be challenging. I'd also like to extend a special welcome to a number of groups who are with us, the clear fellows and you'll be hearing from some of those later. The leading fellows, they are going to be presenting at the in person part of the meeting, which will take place next week, but we may have a few of them with us today. They are all CDP fellows. And I know we have at least a few members of the upcoming cadre of a RL leadership fellows and I would that that cadre officially starts as I understand it in January of 22. I was very pleased and happy to see that a number of active members of the CNI community were among those selected for that leadership cadre. So I congratulate those folks. So I note that we are running this session as a web meeting, not a webinar format as we have in our past virtual meetings. That means, among other things that you can see who else is here with us by looking at the participants. You can chat either directly with individual people or you can, you can share things with the group and I'd invite you to do that as appropriate I hope that will make things feel just a little bit more interactive. We also will be taking questions at the end of each session, assuming there's enough time. And we are on a tight schedule more on that in a little while. Please put questions in the chat as we go along, and we'll try and answer them either as the sessions running at the end offline whatever we are able to do. Please do stay muted unless you're speaking. That is one downside to doing things as a, as a web meeting. I also note that we have a slack channel and a set of sub channel set up for the meeting. This is primarily for people who want to communicate with presenters for the on demand pre recorded sessions. I do want to note that a few days ago we did release a very, very large wealth of pre recorded sessions some 40 odd of them, which are available and will continue to be available during the meeting and after the meeting publicly. We hope that you're finding time or will find time to have a look at those and that you're finding them useful and do feel free to use the slack channel where appropriate to try and communicate with the presenters. We also installed the presenters as well to of course put their email and other contact information in those pre record so just dropping them a line and setting up a time to talk with them is another possibility. Before we go any further, I'd just like to take a moment to introduce two relatively new members of the CNI team that many of you may not have met. There's a huge Pope, who is taken Diane's old role as communications coordinator, and Kennedy mangas who has been a tremendous help with a whole range of communication and social media issues. I am deeply appreciative of all of the work that both of them have done to get this series of in person and virtual events for this December happening. So, I wanted you all to be able to put faces with names I know many of you have been in touch with them through email. This has been a very intense fall for a number of campuses. This has been the first time that students have been back in full numbers since the pandemic started. In the broader world, we see events coming back. There are scholarly meetings happening now. I understand that the American Geophysical Union is meeting next week, as are we. They're a little bigger than we are I understand they're expecting over 10,000 people in New Orleans. You were in person at the Charleston meeting recently. I saw a few folks from our community at edge cause in October when they met in person in Philadelphia. Other kinds of activities are also coming back sports seem to be in full swing. We're seeing millions of people at both the college and the professional level. We're seeing performing arts concerts plays things of that nature, starting to come back carefully. One of the things that I continue to be struck by as I speak to our member institutions around the country and beyond is how very variable the paths that different institutions and different regions of the United States have taken in transiting the pandemic today. Some places were really shut down for a year. And as I say just have are just winding up their first semester with all the students back. Others basically never closed or didn't close for very long or didn't close down all that hard. And when we look at institutions internationally. Of course the picture is even more widely variable. So I would just remind everybody that there really is a lot of varied experience out there and one of the. One of the things that we all need to guard against is assuming that our our experience coming through this or our institutions experience is typical of all the other institutions experience. Having given that context let me talk a little bit about the December CNI meeting and how we've structured it. I'm hoping that at least for CNI this will be the beginning of our effort to map out how we've incorporated what we've learned during our period of forced virtual operation during the pandemic. And with our hopefully growing ability to come back in person and come together in person, and to, to try and understand how to combine those two. I hope that our experience will be useful to other in other organizations that are already grappling with this. I have a lot of unanswered questions here. I am confident we won't get this exactly right and that we're going to have to adjust and learn from what worked and what didn't work. Just as we have been consistently evolving our online events throughout the pandemic so please bear with us please help us, and please be mindful that even if you make a suggestion and we do something very different. I think that we are trying to listen to everybody but that there is an enormous lack of consensus about what the right things to do are going forward. I would just say that reading evaluations from our online events over the last year just makes your head spin because the views are incredibly different from respondent to respondent. The next rule we've tried to follow is to do what works well virtually in the virtual environment and to do what works best in person in the face to face environment. That seems straightforward enough but making the choices is trickier than it looks. I understand increasingly ever more that your time and in particular your attention is really precious and scarce, and that seems to be particularly true online. Not just zoom fatigue, there's some other things going on here, a sense of information overload that's become exacerbated by the move to virtual environments and virtual meetings. I'm still trying to fully understand the dynamic of what's going on here and I've had a lot of confirmation talking with people informally about this. And I'd love to talk further offline with people about exactly how these phenomenon are unraveling. In response to that sense of very scarce precious attention. We've scheduled a very limited series of online synchronous sessions basically two afternoons plus one hour. And we're running them on a tight time schedule. That may mean that we're not going to have much chance to do interactive Q&A and we'll have to handle them in the chat or you'll have to talk to presenters offline and I'm sorry about that. But that was the price of the trade off for the synchronous sessions we've tried to pick broadly important and high impact things, and also things that in an ideal world we might have liked to do in person, but that we couldn't do in person or that are impractical to do in person. For example, you will see international sessions in the synchronous virtual meeting that at least under the present circumstances would not have been feasible to do in person. I mentioned earlier we have a wealth of prerecorded sessions and I don't want to take anything away from their significance or importance or interest by noting that those were prerecorded rather than done in the synchronous sessions. We simply made judgments about what would be of interest to the largest number of people, particularly people who would actually be attending the CNI synchronous meetings. In many cases I suspect the highest impact for some of those prerecords is going to be on people who might not come to the CNI meeting or might not attend the synchronous components for one reason or another, and I would particularly encourage you to share with your colleagues at your institution and beyond those prerecorded sessions when you think they would be of interest. By contrast, while attention is really precious in the virtual environment, the in person meeting is sort of a speculative pre commitment of time, and a commitment to an experience. And what we're doing there is we are stressing interaction networking conversation and again broadly important high impact developments topics and issues and the sort of things where we hope that networking and in person can carry on beyond the individual sessions. The in person meeting, if you go or if you look at the schedule is much more leisurely than in the past. It's smaller. And we have a maximum of three and in many cases only two parallel sessions taking place in the non plenary slots. And using most of the project briefings to pre recordings has really given us room to change the character of the meeting and, and a certain sense to recapture, we hope what CNI meetings were like a number of years ago, when CNI was a somewhat smaller organization. So also that the in person meeting is now going to be comprehensively professionally captured on video, we will have a video crew in each of the rooms. So unless there's a session where the presenter specifically asks not to be recorded, we will make available a full, a full recorded record of those in person meetings. I want to mention the executive roundtables for a minute. These are going to stay virtual. They are something that turned out to work much better in the virtual environment, because we can bring in people that would be impractical to bring in in person. And that's really important for our ability to address a range of topics on the through the executive roundtables. We can also hold them more often than the lockstep schedule of the in person meetings as issues and time permits and requires. And to note, finally, as we talk about hybrid meetings in person meetings virtual meetings that we're going to close out the virtual conference with a presentation on Thursday, and a conversation about how scholarly societies are thinking about the future of meetings virtual and in person so that should be a very interesting bookend to my comments here and our experience here. Our executive roundtables that are being held in conjunction with this meeting are on priorities for major capital investments in digital infrastructure. Yesterday we'll hold the second convening on Friday. And I think you're going to find the report on this very interesting. This is this whole question of infrastructure and infrastructure investments is kind of a theme of this meeting I'll say some more about this in my opening in person plenary, but you can see that theme reflected in many of the synchronous sessions and also in the sessions in the in person meeting. So, as I say I'll have a little more to say about this in my opening plenary for the in person meeting, but do be mindful of that theme. Speaking of that. That takes me to the introduction to the next session and I'm going to start in a little early with some background and some framing remarks and I'm sorry for people who tuned in just for the, for the along came Google session. But you can pick up the recording for anything you missed because I'm starting a few minutes early. So, this is one of the great infrastructure investment stories of our time. Perhaps. And then I can think of off the top of my head on a similar scale is the development of internet to and read the research and education networks at Jerome and all the things that came along with that. But that's a very different kind of infrastructure investment than the story of the digitization of so much of our book cultural heritage. So we'll be joined momentarily by Roger Schoenfeld and Deanna Markham, hopefully, of Ithaca SNR. Deanna alerted me a day or so ago that that she might be a little late although I see a message that she has arrived while I've been speaking so that's wonderful. Both Deanna and Roger will be well known to you for their work at Ithaca SNR. Deanna though has had a fabled career, including a important stint as the associate librarian of Congress. That's where she played a really important role in so much of what the Library of Congress did trying to find its place in the digital world, and also at clear. So, I'm delighted to have them with us they've written this wonderful book which I was fortunate enough to be able to read in draft. And it's really, it's really just an extraordinary story of the, the whole move to digitize libraries. A number of people I've talked with about the book have described a strange experience reading it in that they're sort of reading a story of their own lives and of experiences that they went through personally. And it's surprising the number of people who shared that reaction with me, it may be that some of us are just getting to be of a certain age, but it's striking to me. And Deanna recently had a conversation with Brewster Cale of the Internet Archive and the video that's available at the Internet Archive site. We are going to carefully not duplicate topics that were covered there, but you really can get that sense from Brewster as well of, you know, you're, you're reading a book about things that you lived through and to some extent participated in. And I can't resist noting that in spring 2005, the opening plenary for the CNI spring meeting was the first public appearance of all of the five initial Google library participants. And we went up at the opening plenary session and talked about what they were doing. And at some level, that was the first time I think that the broader community really started to understand what was going on, beyond the non disclosure agreements that Roger and Deanna talked about that were part of the initial rollout strategy and part of kind of the way Google was approaching this broadly. Ironically, at the request of the participants that 2005 plenary sadly was not recorded. So I wish we could make that recording available but we can't. So CNI also lived through this experience. The book, which we're not going to summarize or reiterate I'm just going to tell you get it and read it. It's a it's a great book and I'm not going to do the boring thing of asking Roger and Deanna, can you please summarize the book in five minutes we have better things to do with our time. It tells the story of the prehistory of large scale digitization it looks at some of the dreamers, some of their dreams and goals, and then tells the story of Google's move and what that triggered in terms of fellow travelers competitors, the to open up parts of the collection that weren't clearly public domain, some very complex legal maneuvering about what to do with the corpus once it was digitized, the ultimate failure of a very interesting and controversial class action settlement, and through the creation of Hottie trust, which has been so critical during the pandemic, particularly to the humanities and social sciences as part of institutional instructional and research resilience. Fascinating the way this investment that was made for one purpose has turned out to be so critical for another purpose and it puts me in mind and this is the last thing I'm going to say before I start framing questions for Deanna and Roger. It puts me in mind of the kind of underestimated importance of the Google book scanning project and its outcomes as a preservation strategy. I remember Mary Sue Coleman, when she went in front of the American Association of publishers, which was not happy about this project. She was the president at the time of the University of Michigan, one of the ring leaders and most ardent participants of the Google book scanning project, and she basically said words to the effect of this project. Once she understood that this would provide a backup in case of catastrophe for the collections of the University of Michigan. She was morally obligated to move ahead with this project. And we can kind of see how that's played out in the pandemic and that role as a step towards preservation and resilience has proved to be incredibly important. So let me ask a few questions that really came to mind as I reread the book over the last couple of days. One thing that's always struck me is the way this captured the public imagination in a way that I've not seen anything else quite do. People don't think like this about YouTube, despite the fact that YouTube has carried gathered up a amazing amount of film and video cultural heritage. People don't think about the idea of the so-called celestial jukebox that Napster used to represent and that, in fact, the various music streaming services have come. At the same time, you know, we've collected up all these books here through the digitization project, and yet they are anything but a synthesis of knowledge. They are certainly not the final encyclopedia that you make passing mention of in the prehistory of the Google Books project, which in fact alludes to Gordon Dickinson's science fiction effort to create a orbiting compendium of knowledge around the earth. I wonder if you could reflect a little bit on your thoughts on why and whether and how this just so passionately captured the public imagination. We need to unmute you too. Okay. For one thing, I mean, it captured the imagination of librarians because Google was a surprise. They didn't make many announcements beforehand. They just went to the five institutions, worked out deals, and they started and then other people learned about it. But in terms of the public, I think the reason that they were so interested is that they could imagine a digital library that they could go to and use. And it was something that was very appealing to the to the broad public. I think that's exactly right. And I think that, you know, in a way the the celestial jukebox is a reflection of our cultural heritage, but the contents of the libraries of course also include our intellectual heritage as well and I can't help but wonder if, if, if that, that both within our community but also beyond it really captured, you know, attention in a different in a different kind of way and, and of course as Deannis says, you know, this was the stuff that libraries were in a way that for better or for worse. You know, libraries have not had at the time did not have as big of a of an investment in some of these other kinds of media formats to see the potential for being disrupted through Napster or YouTube or whatever and quite the same quite the same way so Yeah, I think I think that was a big difference as well. Let me let me take on another aspect of that. So, Google went for books. It went for libraries and, as those of us who've worked with digital content know that books are in some sense the hardest case for moving digital. Particularly if you want to do sustained reading as opposed to just, you know, check out a couple of pages. You can't print books locally with most technology that's around in the same way you can print, say journal articles, they need a lot of bandwidth they need a lot of navigation tools. My experience when I was back at the University of California saw us move into journals pretty early in the latter part of the 80s we started making online journals available. And certainly, you know, when you look at the history of J store. I believe that that's significantly predated the work on on the Google books project. Roger of course, you know is the chronicler of J store. So, I'm very interested in his views here. Why did, why did Google just go for books and and and not try and scoop up journals as well. It seems that particularly for some kinds of knowledge, the journals are going to be higher impact than the books. Thoughts on that. Great question. I, and I don't know that I know the answer to what Google's thinking was on this. I mean to your, to your point Clifford large scale digitization of journal back files it started roughly a decade before before the book was released with the books project. And so, you know there's a, there is a case to be made that the journals problem by no means was solved I mean we can certainly talk about open access and restrictions on access and, and discovery issues and all sorts of things, but in terms of the actual digitization of some of the most significant elements of the journal literature in really across the different fields. You know most of the major scientific publishers had already digitized their journal back files by by 2004 2005 I think a detailed look which shows so I yeah so I think I think I think the books were just in a different, in a different place it was seen as more of a title by title challenge as opposed to from the library perspective anyway as opposed to these, you know publisher engagements with the journals where they were, where they were scanning an entire back file for for an entire company and, and selling them back to libraries of course it's a very different kind of kind of model. In that sense one might argue that it was really Google's willingness to take on the risk of thinking about a library's holdings very much like a, like a back file of the journal. Where journal publishers understood the rights situation on the back file that was very clean but the libraries had been thinking book by book for digitization and Google was willing to think about it as a back file, and maybe that was part of the a back file, absolutely. And also, you know, at scale, and thinking about risk management in a totally different way than anyone in our sector I think probably ever has. That's an exaggeration but I mean the expense. Interesting. Really interesting. So, one of one of the pieces of the one of the central actors in the story you tell is our, our friend, Paul current, who you know really I think played kind of a pivotal role in getting the University of Michigan to commit to pretty basically doing comprehensive collection scanning and partnering. And there's, there's a sense in which the perfect is the enemy of a good of the good and Paul was the great advocate of the good and the possible in the story. And it feels like there's, there's a consistent thread of delays and roadblocks to the participation of other institutions, because of lingering distrust of commercial partners of Google's motives. And perhaps the potential disintermediation of libraries and librarians. I wonder if, and I think you're, you're the way you tell the story frames that very well and I wonder if you could expand or reflect a little bit more on that. Well, one of the reasons I admire Paul current as much as I do is that he was willing to take the risk. And I think it might have been hard for Google to find many library directors who were willing to do it. But he was notable in his willingness to take a risk and to tell the library community what he's doing. But, you know, that he just stuck with the facts throughout the process process. I just have enormous respect and writing the book helped me put him in context more. That was very helpful for me and I see how much we owe him, because other libraries then got interested in digitization projects. I think it's because of the leadership Paul showed. One of the things that has been a special treat for me in the process of writing the book has been some conversations that Deanna and I've had about leadership in, you know, in, in the library community and beyond. I think one of the things that really characterizes Paul's leadership was a deep pragmatism within the goals or vision that, you know, he had, he had come to come to hold and, you know, he definitely he and the team at Michigan and others definitely encountered all sorts of individuals who, you know, weren't, weren't sure that they wanted to take a pragmatic approach along the way they had different kinds of principles and it was, it was, it was a must have been a lonely experience at some points as, as well and I think it's a very interesting study in not just Paul's leadership individually but but a group of people that that collectively, you know, move, move this forward. And I think one of the reasons Paul was able to do it is he had been the provost at the University of Michigan, and he had more, maybe credibility or felt that he had a longer leash to play with. He did very well and I think he inspired other librarians to, to take a more responsible approach to their collections and start digitizing them and making them available. I mean, you really rereading the book, particularly for the second time for me really put Paul and his contributions in a in a very, you know, clear light. I really appreciated that. Speaking gears a bit. One of the things that has always been striking is the cultural disconnect between Google, which is basically the culture of computer science and libraries and the culture of librarianship. One of the things that Google just sort of doesn't get very well is metadata cataloging the, and also certain niceties and additions and things like that don't seem a high on the list. The, the, you know, Google's approach to things has always been full text processing and retrieval and we've seen this, you know, again and again and again. Nowhere is that disconnect that that cultural inconsistency stronger than in the books digitization project, I think. I know, Hadi has spent a lot of time trying to deal with the legacy of that but I wonder if you have thoughts on the extent to which that not only caused trouble but ultimately proved to be something of a barrier in getting library buy into the Google work. Certainly, it was, it was a big barrier and, you know, if you remember, at the time Google started the project, they were writing that they wanted to do books because they could then add them to the database they were already developing and they would give much more content. And so I don't, I don't think they ever saw this as a library project. But as a way to get content for their database and librarians were offended. I think, because of the, the kind of sloppiness of the first iteration of the project. The microfilm or not microfilming that digitization was not terribly good at the beginning. The quality wasn't that good. And they mostly ignored the bibliographic process that goes along in libraries with digitizing materials. So, I don't know, I think that Google had specific goals and set out to meet them and did, and libraries benefited a lot, but it took some time. Do you want to add anything on that, Roger? I mean, I just think it's a, you know, it's such a clear illustration of the difference between a kind of collections mindset and a data mindset for exactly the same content, but yeah, I think yeah, I said it really well. I mean, one can almost imagine had things worked at just a little bit differently, seeing all of these library collections sort of subsumed into the mass of stuff that one, one get one searches one one types in the Google search box. Yeah, and losing the identity of a library versus stuff, you know, collected up off of the web. Providence structure all of all of that. Yeah. There's so many things we could talk about. Let me let me use our last bits of time here maybe to invite you to do some speculating. So, I look at where we've ended up with sound recordings and particularly popular music today, where we've ended up with video material, both of these have gone to a sort of a streaming model where very few people own anything. So there are these huge but at the same time, balkanized masses of content out there. The landscape for books is really different. And it's different for a lot of reasons. I wonder if you would reflect a little bit on how what what the end game looks like for books in comparison to those other kinds of media, and further if you might speculate a little bit and this is really speculative now. So suppose the settlement had been accepted. Would that have changed the end state. Well, maybe I'll, maybe I'll give a few thoughts and Diana may want to get into the counterfactual of what what what the world might look might have looked like otherwise. I think that I think that this, Diana and I are both approach a lot of our thinking in this project, in part through the lens of preservation, right not just discovery and access but but also questions about preservation and I think that, you know, in asking us to talk a little bit about the connection between where we are with books and some of these other more streaming driven content types I think I'll say for myself, it gives me great comfort to know that how to trust exists that the Internet archive exists that we have, you know, community friendly, not for profit services that have ultimately have control of the books and the digitized books and I think that that the opportunities that I'll say I certainly didn't foresee the need for a pandemic emergency access program through what we trust until all of a sudden we had a pandemic wasn't something I was planning for. But, but when that became possible, it became possible only because we weren't streaming that material from a third party but because, because there was a community controlled organization that that had had that content. So we're seeing some really interesting next stage developments in in books and what it means to have community control of books and I think some of the initiatives around control digital lending that have developed really accelerated over the last year or so earlier I think we're developing earlier certainly suggest a really different kind of model for a content type that remains a dual format content type when a library can can simply buy a print copy, and then scan it and lend it digitally if assuming that control digital lending passes the court tests that it faces. And I think that just suggests a really, really different set of possibilities than, you know, licensing a streaming service or whatever whatever content we maybe we might think about instead so I'll just I think that that's some of the ways in which the end game for books looks much more promising. I think even if it's a more complicated landscape then then we're seeing for some other content types. I think you're right Roger, and the thing that I keep reminding myself of is libraries been collecting materials for, for many decades, and they have amassed collections that matter because of their longevity and because of their preservation issues. And it, I think once people start thinking about what the libraries have put together. It's, it's very impressive. So I, maybe the, the comprehensiveness of collections has mattered more over time than anything else about the collections. That's a really fascinating answer to that. And, you know, I couldn't help thinking when you said Roger that it gives you comfort to think about where the books thing is landing. Pessimists that I am I of course flip that around and was thinking yes and it gives me great angst to think about where the recorded sound and video world is and how little of that is in any kind of hands for reliable preservation. That's absolutely right. And I think. And I think that the counterfactual to explore there is what would have happened if, if libraries had seen themselves as collectors of physical media in some of those content types in this to the same extent that it was mission centric to think about, think about books and there's a there's a lot, a lot of different scenarios we could we could tease out there. Well, in our last couple of minutes, while we're doing scenarios. What let's let's look at the future as more and more born digital books come out. And, you know, perhaps less books come out in both print and digital form. What happens to the great digitized collections going forward does does book scanning and digitization and the work of hottie in particular, kind of wind down. I mean, it's not, it's not that it stops it's not that the collection goes away, but it starts growing slower and slower, and most of the growth in digitization moves on to the endless supply of undigitized special collections that our institutions hold. How do you how do you see that that, you know, future playing out over the next 10 or 15 years. Well, I guess I'll say I do think that that attention is turning to distinctive collections I don't think there's any, any question about that and I think there's an enormous amount of opportunity there exactly as you, as you say. I'm less clear on how much longer we're going to be in a dual format environment for for books. Certainly, our publisher wanted to publish our book about book digitization in intangible form. You know, the economics of bookmaking and bookselling the reader readership preferences remain, you know, to a very large extent grounded on the print format. Certainly for long form reading and I don't think we're seeing as much evidence as folks might have anticipated a decade ago that that's going to change. It's going to change as quickly as folks had anticipated. So, so I, I'm not, I'm not really prepared to say that, you know, I think what I think what what's unclear to me is whether print books will become like the vinyl of our streaming environment, or if, or if print is is actually the optimal format for for long form reading and I think I think the jury's still out on that, at least as I see it. And I would add that, you know, for a lot of people, the book represents a connection to the knowledge that's in it, and holding the book, reading the book and print matters to a lot of people still. And I think that will continue for quite a while. I think so too. That's so that's really fascinating. I think I think we might have time for one comment or question from the audience if there is one just, I think the simplest thing to do is pop it in the chat. If people formulate that for a moment, I will say, thank you very much, not just for talking with us today, but for writing this book is really, really important to get this history out and to get it out. Well, you know, you could still, you could still interview the firsthand sources. I think this is, you know, a book that people are going to come back to for many years, and it really documents a very pivotal moment in, in our world. So, I'm so grateful to you for for writing it as well as for coming to talk about it and for everybody out there. Here's the book. I encourage you all to read it. It's a it's a very brisk and enjoyable read. Thank you, Cliff, and thanks for the good question you asked. And, and, and if I could just say thank you to you and really to the whole CNI community that's been a part of this story and that's served as some of the most intellectually fertile ground. I think for both of us in shaping our shaping our thinking on a lot of these topics. All right, there, there is a question in but I think I think we're probably a little tight for time, perhaps, one of you might want to say a word or two about it. Actually, there are a couple coming in that you might want to comment on in chat. I think I think probably we need to to wind down, we're going to take a short break here. And then we are going to come back at 210 Eastern. So in about nine or 10 minutes. And we're going to start the first of our synchronous project briefings. Great to have you both here. Thank you so very much. Thanks for having us. Thank you. We appreciate it. Yeah. All right. See you all in about 10 minutes.