 Alright, I think it's time to get started again. And so welcome back to the December 2021 virtual event that's part of the CNI full membership meeting this year. This next session is a project briefing. From a team at the University of Connecticut and a couple of graduate students, Rachel Nutt and Heather Owen from Syracuse University, looking at the issue of addressing systemic bias in cultural heritage repository programs and they've done this through case study of the Connecticut Digital Archive and they'll tell you more about that. This is an issue that I know many institutions are looking at aspects of and it's a it's a multi dimensional multi headed issue. But I'm very much looking forward to what Greg and Mike and Heather and Rachel will have to tell us about this. I'd like to welcome them and hopefully we'll have time towards the end of the session for a few questions but over to you all. Thanks a lot Cliff. And thank you CNI for allowing us to speak to you in in synchronously rather than asynchronously because we really do want this to be a discussion. We actually want to begin this discussion, telling you about the things we've done, but also wanting to get your feedback about it. We're going to speak for about 20 minutes, and then open the floor to discussion. Please as we go along post questions in the chat. And at the end we'll address those questions and any others that come up during the question period. A complete explanation of our work is available on the CTDA and context website, and then the white paper that we published on that website with the same title as our session. The URL is available on the slide that you see now, and it will be on the slide at the end of the deck as well. And our speakers today come from the University of Connecticut where Mike, Kamesis and I run the Connecticut Digital Archive and Syracuse University where Rachel, not and Heather open Omen were graduate students interns. On the CTDA and contact program there in the summer of 2021. The discussion actually ties in really well with the discussion about Google books in the previous session. We are also going to be talking about collections and collection development, and the systems that power them, and who makes the decisions about all of these things. So, let's get into the details of our investigation and our findings. Heather, take it away. Oh, I'm sorry, Mike, take it away. Good. Yes, I'm Mike Kamesis as Greg said I'm the repository manager for the Connecticut Digital Archive been been with the program since 2017 and I'm excited to make my first appearance at CNI this year. So just before we start a little bit about who we are. So the Connecticut Digital Archive is a program of the digital preservation repository unit at the University of Connecticut library. It stores Connecticut, the unit is composed of two full time staff members myself and Greg several graduate interns at any given moment, two of which are here today as we've already mentioned, and several undergraduate student employees. So the CTDA launched in November 2013 with a handful of collections and about 28,000 digital objects all from a single institution the University of Connecticut archives and special collections. Today we're responsible for stewarding the preservation of 2.8 plus digital million 2.8 million digital objects, totaling close to 70 terabytes of data. The repository program continues to grow averaging between 25 to 35,000 objects added a month, equaling close to one terabyte of data added to the repository. We currently have 85, 85 institutional members, and we are adding one or two new institutions per month since the beginning of 2021. We have close to 200 content managers who use the repository to update content from all of these institutions. So what we do our mission as the statewide digital preservation repository is to provide the technical infrastructure to manage, maintain and disseminate digital collections for our member institutions. The CTDA does not own or curate any content added to the repository. Our members have sole management responsibility for their content. We support our members by providing resources training and collaborative opportunities across the membership across the state. We also advise potential participants about the CTDA's programs and refer them to alternative programs organization suitable for the specific needs. There's a lot going on in Connecticut for such a small state. We are members of several cultural heritage coalitions regionally nationally and internationally. We work with the State Library, the State Historical League, and the State Humanities Council on several big ticket projects to enhance statewide digital collect digital cultural systems and infrastructure. We serve as the Connecticut hub for the Digital Public Library of America sit in the Island Island to our foundation coordinating committee and actively participate in the open glam movement. Next slide. Oh, one back. Thank you. Nope. There we go. Perfect. So CTDA in context is a program designed to break down traditional power structures and inspired change both at the institution and systemic levels in the cultural heritage landscape in Connecticut. We feel we have the responsibility to examine and improve the frameworks that we create and provide to provide benefits to our community and the larger cultural heritage community in Connecticut and regionally. The idea for the CTDA in context program started with conversations between myself and Kayla Hickson Grant our intern in the summer of 2020. Kayla questioned the silences in the repository specifically the lack of indigenous collections among our millions of objects and more than 70 institutions. Through conversations we decided to work to place the CTDA in the proper context of the digital cultural heritage landscape. And initially we wanted to figure out how to diversify our collections and our membership. We held internal discussions for about eight months before we assembled a working group drawn from our community and presented them the ideas that we had. After discussions and feedbacks from this group, we decided we needed to do even more research about the landscape of digital cultural heritage in the United States and in Connecticut specifically. While we originally wanted to focus on diversifying our collections and memberships from the get-go, we discovered that we needed to better understand our program to make lasting systemic chains that allow us to incorporate the values of diversity, equity and inclusion and accessibility into the core of what we do as a thriving program. Our research with the help of Rachel Nutt and Heather Owen this past summer resulted in the CTDA in context white paper we're presenting here today. Greg will now give more background about our research goals and methods we used for the paper. You're muted, Greg. I know. Thanks, like the often quoted David Foster Wallace commencement speech is simply reminding us that some of the most obvious and important realities are often the ones that are hardest to see and talk about because they fade into the background of our lives. We began talking about making the CTDA more multicultural, and we decided that we needed to find out what were our core assumptions based on. We thought that we had a very open and welcoming system. We had very low barriers to entry. We thought it was easy for people to learn and know about us. But once we started looking at things, we thought maybe that wasn't really what was happening. But we also wanted to know if we shared these assumptions with other organizations like us, most specifically other DPLA hubs. We had this hypothesis that the CTDA and the DPLA hubs were essentially monocultural in their infrastructures not necessarily in their collections, but in their infrastructures, and then how they communicated, even when like us. So we embarked on this journey of self reflection by looking at ourselves, our members and our colleagues in the DPLA hub network. And today we present our discoveries, not using a strict methodology of social science, but in a way that is more anecdotal and personal, and we hope more accessible. Now I pass it to Heather. Go back a slide. Okay, it seems to be advancing to whenever I hit the thing. There we go. Thank you. So the first step in our research process was to examine the various DPLA hub websites. However, we have found many problems with the websites. They were often poorly designed, used technical jargon, were contradictory or were lacking information. While this made it difficult for us to accumulate information for our research, it also raised an important question. The support design on the website and the lack of clearly displayed information, a barrier of entry. Since we did not find the information via websites, we decided to send a survey to the DPLA hubs, 14 out of 27 hubs responded to the survey. We don't have time now to discuss all the results. So I will speed through them. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them. First, we determined that helps very greatly in size, that most hubs have no participation fee. This is important to keep in mind as we compare them. We also determined that helps mostly work with customer institutions, such as libraries, archives and museums. And most institutions become participants via an application process. Although many hubs seem willing to work with non-customary institutions, there's not something that happens frequently. Hubs should examine themselves in order to determine why this is. Interestingly, we determined that the requirements to become participants are not universal. And that no requirement is required by all of the hubs. This raises an interesting question. What requirements are truly necessary? Could we lower requirements in order to encourage more groups to participate? We also determined that no service is offered by all of the hubs. This raises an interesting question as well. What services would you most like to participate in? This raises an interesting question as well. What services would you most imperative to assisting newcomers? In conclusion, we determined that hubs should update their websites and use clear language about technical jargon to explain how their hubs work. We also determined that hubs should open themselves up to institutions that are not customary, and should reconsider the requirements they have for participants. Thank you Heather. In addition to looking at other hubs, we also needed to look at ourselves as a repository. So just as it's important for us to understand our identities in this research group as white individuals who are tied to academic institutions, we needed to understand who our repository members are and how they define themselves. So we decided to do this by examining the mission and vision statements that our members have made publicly available on their websites. Not all statements are publicly available online, and these statements are just one facet of an institution's identity. However, mission and vision statements are a good place for us to start because they're concise summaries of who an institution is, what their values are, and what their goals are. Next slide please. Of the 76 members that were in the repository when we collected this data last summer, 52 had publicly available mission or vision statements. So we ran those through Wayant tools to create visualizations of the text to help us better understand the trends in the data, such as this word cloud here, which shows the most frequently occurring terms. I've also listed the 20 most popular terms on the little column to the right. So there were some surprises in here, for example, we didn't anticipate history to be as high on the list as it was. And we thought that public would be much higher on the list than it currently is. However, these terms make a little more sense when you consider our member makeup. Next slide please. As you can see, our top three institutions here are public libraries, museums and historical societies. So this would explain why terms like history are so prevalent, and it would also explain what community was our number one term. Understanding our member makeup in this way also helps us understand other trends in our data as well. Next slide please. For visualizations, I took a look at how the language of our member and mission and vision statements aligned with certain theoretical frameworks, such as the strategic diversity manifesto and the multicultural organization development or m cod model. These help us understand how the language used supported or didn't support concepts of inclusion diversity equity and access. For example, although most members use language that does support accessibility in some form, very few use the term equitable access outright. Again, these statements are just one piece of our members identities but because these statements are definitions of who they are, it's information we need to consider. Next slide please. Moving forward with this analysis, we'd like to include more text than just these statements such as values and goals statements as well as diversity statements. And we've also created a map of where our members headquarters are. So we're looking to pair this information with census data to understand information about populations that our members serve, or the populations that our members are close to. So we're moving forward in that direction as I next steps. Thank you. So, as Jill and Heather said, we had time over the summer to do a number of things, but not nearly everything that we wanted. We tended to raise more questions than answers. But that's a good thing in any sort of research. The CTDA is a small organization as you have seen Mike and I are the only full time members staff. Our membership is highly motivated to participate. We did our best to ask an answer questions for ourselves about our membership and about our colleagues. We think this experience is valid for us and can be a guide for other repositories. We've identified for areas of investigation and work ahead of us. And I don't think these four areas will surprise anyone, nor will our proposed solutions. But most importantly, the message we want to convey today is that thoughtful self examination can uncover systemic biases, even in the most forward thinking organizations. So we'll look at these four areas, talk a little bit about what we see for the CTDA, and then ask you all to contribute. How that resonates with you or what you see happening in your organizations. And then we'll talk about outreach as Heather said, how we describe ourselves to others currently speaks only to those who already know what we do and how we do it. We're working to make our mission and message much more understandable to the general public, and those who are not currently part of our group. To be clear in language and organization needs to use non technical language that speaks to a wider population beyond the customary experts and speak to underrepresented communities and those people who are less professional in their approaches to history. Our technology platform and how we use it needs much deeper analysis and improvements as well. In terms of the metadata vocabularies we suggested connect to. While our system works best with hierarchically organized collections, we're working to flatten the organizational requirements and use relationship mapping to make connections more fluid and discovery more organic. In the summer results display the traditional list ordered by relevance will certainly need some alternative display options to meet the needs of more diverse audiences and different intellectual and learning approaches. As we, and these things are all chicken and egg things changing one thing causes changes in other places, and it will all feed on itself we hope. So in conclusion, something we found is that the CTDA operates in what we'd like to call the customary digital cultural world, the site of organizations that in Connecticut, have been the arbiters of culture for centuries really. The CTDA is based at a large public academic institution, we see these two. These are two strikes against us when we seek to connect with community or underrepresented groups. This is a difficult thing for us to figure out how to connect to people who are not like us and bring them in. And I think some of the changes we make in other places in our program will encourage people to work with us. We're always looking for examples and suggestions from you all. And you can see some of our ideas in this slide. Finally, I think the most radical idea we came up with in our research is this idea to create participation requirements based on commitment to stewardship, rather than institutional affiliation. The CTDA has always had an open policy regarding collection selection and metadata. Excuse me leaving those decisions to content owners. We wonder what would happen if we extended this open policy to participation and let anyone who was willing to commit to certain requirements of stewardship, have a place in the preservation archive that is the CTDA. Understanding that opening the archive in this way does not stop traditional organizations from continuing to collect the range of described content. This topic of citizen and community participation and contact creation isn't new to the archives, but these efforts are typically undertaken with the oversight of information professionals affiliated with a customary archival repository. Again, we wonder what would happen if we let community groups or even individuals curate their own history in a permanent digital archive. Or do these groups and people in fact require mediation from professionals to create so called permanently valuable collections. How far we can democratize access to creating primary sources is a question that we don't have an answer to. How much knowledge about archival practice do you need to curate your own story. What questions of reliability and authenticity are raised by connecting content creators directly with digital archives. How does this role. How does this change the role of traditional gatekeepers. So the question, as I said of the role of the so called information professional and historical documentation. And it can seem threatening to the customary keepers of cultural knowledge, who prize their training and understanding of best practices as the key to turning a mass of amorphous stuff into useful information. The customary practices may in fact be reinforcing the hegemony of customary institutions over the cultural heritage landscape, and may also be reinforcing a model with the cultural outlook to all of our archives. If passing a cultural or organizational test is required to participate in preservation by that very nature it's exclusionary, yet how much exclusion is necessary or warranted. There are new questions, but current technology allows us to imagine answering them in a new way. What would be the effect on a historical record, if every person could be their own archivist. It would certainly change things, perhaps change the definitions of authenticity and digital repositories and put more responsibility on the researcher to look into and understand the origins of available content. What role would archivist play in this new scenario. It has been changing how we collect, preserve and disseminate primary sources for millennia. The system we use today is just one iteration of record keeping systems that have been changing since the beginnings of culture. We suggest that it's time to think about creating a new relationship between digital preservation and content creation. We have a question that we raised and considered during our self review, and we want to know if any of these questions resonate with you, and what you might be doing about them, and what you found to work and not to work. And so now we'll begin to answer questions from you please put them in the chat. You'll see a link to the CTDA on the slide, the CTDA in context in general, and in particular to the CTDA white paper on addressing systemic challenges in the Connecticut digital archive. So let you have a minute or two to come up with a question or two. And we may have one for you. We're looking at four areas that we are going to investigate further. Have we missed anything. What did we not think about that we could or should have. Because of course we can only approach these things from our perspectives and our backgrounds and training and understanding. It was really great although Mike and I who have been out of school for a while to work with Heather and Rachel, who are deeply into the more academic aspects of the library archival world and are a lot more current I should say in a lot of the literature. And so that blend of sort of on the ground experience and knowledge of the current thinking. I think helped us really well. Hi, everybody. We have a question from Tara Lynn Fulton. Hello, boss, BLC Boston Library Consortium colleagues, I'd be interested to hear more about what the, what led you to embark on this project or question being asked in the state, or was it more impetus from dialogue within the glam professions. I think I'll have Mike answer that because a lot of this was driven by Mike. I think it goes back to the summer of 2020 June and July specifically I'll remember kind of the social upheaval and the movements and all the statements being put out by all these organizations about about the protests about all these police brutality, George Floyd, all of this stuff was coming to a head, and I messaged Greg one day and said, Do we say something about this, and our conversation kind of turned into well. What do we say, what do we have what possibly could we add to this. We haven't really thought about our position kind of in regard to these kind of issues. And this also kind of came when Kayla Hicks and Grant our intern wanted to really explore power and silences and archives, really in history. You know, all kind of sparked this conversation that started with well explaining to Kayla who is an undergraduate. Not everything's in the CTDA not everything's in digital repository, but we could see how someone might think that they come there to do research paper if it's not there it must not exist. That kind of started the conversations and I did notice that this was going around. Kind of, you know, it's in the air right people have been talking about it idea and diversity and equity and inclusion, especially in librarianship is kind of the you know, the hot button topic right now. So that kind of just led to conversations internally and selected conversations with our community members and kind of floating the idea. We see ourselves in a special place where we can really drive conversation in a certain sector of the state. And the way we kind of view ourselves is we are that connection between these organizations, both big and small that are understaffed underfunded right we all are who can't keep up with all of this because they have to do their day jobs, you know what I mean. And as in that position we were listening to the conversations going on like you kind of mentioned that, you know, in the glam community at the national level in digital cultural heritage and then bringing that back down to us to talk about internally and say how do we approach this. Yeah, what's kind of the impetus for it was kind of saying, do we do we have a space here for us you know this is important to all of us. We make that important to our program, and not just kind of have a pop up project, but how do we then enfold this and this becomes CTA context the principles, the guidelines, all the things that we explored here how does that become the CTA. So at some point there is no difference. So I hope that answers the question that was a bunch of things happened at the same time. And I think it's turned out really great it's kind of gotten a different direction than we originally thought it would. And it's true for a long time we, we had this idea that since the CTA did not own any content itself but all the content was owned by the members. It wasn't our responsibility to deal with this. But then we figured out that as the only statewide organization. We had a responsibility to take the lead in this. Roger that says he says that the seems an analytical framework, but at least part of our work is on a spectrum from monocultural to multicultural can we say a little bit about how we selected this model and how important it is in our analysis. I'm just wondering how it allows us to consider culturally specific organizations and connect collections, and I will pass this on to Rachel, who has done the most work in this area with us. Thank you for your question. I mean, looking at inclusion diversity equity and access. I'm really I'm, I'm fairly familiar with the strategic diversity manifesto which is a framework to help look at the different ways in which public libraries can support members of marginalized communities so looking at how public and academic library support, women's concerns in Alabama was one of the ways in which it was implemented things like that and that's what really introduced me to the MCOD model, because I wanted to, I wanted to see how language, specific language that would talk to specific issues could be used to understand something and whole Vino's work on the MCOD model provided a lot of ways for us not only to put this to a framework but also to visualize it. I think that we're still in the beginning stages of the textual analysis of different websites and again understanding that this only represents a portion of what an institution does. I think that as we move forward and looking at other parts of our how our members describe themselves so in their diversity statements in their goals statements which were separate from mission and vision usually, and other things like that I think this will be a good way for us to see exactly how our language supports or does not support different ideas within idea. That kind of brings up a point that I think kind of segues into this is we've talked about this to our membership at our annual meeting and somebody asked me, so how are you going to get how are you going to make everyone participate how are you going to get make how are you going to make everyone adopt this. And that's a good question that we people institutions might be worried that we're going to come to them with this analysis of their mission statements of their websites, or their metadata and say you're doing this wrong, you need to fix it. What the angle we're taking is that we're here to help. We're here to kind of do that analysis that when we talk to most places they would love help doing that kind of stuff figuring out how to better describe or better talk about themselves. So our goal is to kind of not come in and say you need to change this because we can't do that, but we want to get, we want to make changes at our program at our program level to kind of inspire other people also to make changes and then help them along that path because it is a long as we know we've been it's been what 18 months now, and we're finally we don't produce this white paper and it's not okay now we can actually do some more work. So you know we work with organizations that even though we're small are much more underfunded than we are or don't even know what questions to ask but they want to do the right they want to do this, they want to be involved in this. So that's how we kind of want to work with our organization. We're doing this research to give to you to help you make better decisions to help you get started on your diversity statement or help you to get started on a new collecting project. So that's kind of where we sit. When it comes to that into that framework. And there are also some really simple things that we could do more easily. I was talking earlier about metadata and, you know, when we do metadata training and we tell people about the architecture disorders we talked we tell them about fast and we tell them about a couple other things, but we don't ever talk to them about indigenous people vocabularies or lbtq vocabularies or anyone of a number of what are often classified as alternative vocabularies to describe their collections. Like that's easy. That's easy for us to do, and to assemble some resources and let people use them. We don't impose metadata rules on our users, but if they don't know about things they can't use them. And if a an organization that is culturally specific sees that we have and support these things are culturally specific to them they'll say hey, these guys must be okay even though they come from the big bad state institution. You know, like we say there are, there are things embedded in how we do things like the hierarchical system of organization. Like metadata vocabularies that we that we tell people about the whole idea of our search algorithm, which we know nothing about how it works. This is, you know, something we're going to have to really look at. Let's see, Boaz from Lehigh. Around the interest in exploring international missing based individual preservation via the library, as opposed to the current forced individual preservation and indexing the Facebook Google etc. So govern profiling. Yeah, or on the ways of indexing such content is probably feasible, but it's just a temporary fix vocabularies will keep on changing will we allow people and ideas to opt out from these containers. Yes, I think. If I understand what you're saying that expanding the number of vocabularies we connect people to an offer is a temporary solution, because metadata management is perpetual and never finished. I was reading an article recently about how the mistakes of the past were a burden on present archivists, because people didn't process things correctly. And I know Mike and I were talking about that saying like, you know, they're never processed. They're never finished processing collections. Because the uses we have for them change over time. And that's why a flexible approach and an ongoing approach to management is so essential and that's what we try to tell our members to I am very curious, I'm going to ask you all a question. Oh, okay, Rachel. Yes, it depends. I specifically want to know what you think of allowing an individual to participate in a permanent digital archive program without the mediation of a professional archives organization. I will say to clarify a little bit because I think it's super interesting Greg was always kind of talking about personal digital archiving, and there's no resources about what happens next after you make your archive. And that's kind of where, you know, kind of mashed with this discussion. So what happens after you die with your personal digital archive that you've taken so long to make and burn on these gold CDs, or send to the moon or as one institution told me burn them on clay DVDs, and then put them in a vault. And then I asked him what I don't have a DVD player at home, and he looked at me like I was nuts. So, you know what happens and I think that's what we're trying to figure out. And that's kind of the angle I look at this through is it's kind of like okay. The next step is putting this somewhere permanently putting your digital, your personal digital archives somewhere permanently. And I think it's a super interesting idea, I will say for clarity I thought Greg was crazy when he brought this to me and said there's no way we could ever do this from a management perspective from a policy perspective from a technology perspective. And the more we talked about it. The more and more I was convinced that it is something that we can, and I think should seriously look into and pursue. And this is coming from the repository manager who configures the repository and on boards and members all the times and I think I think it's something that is very interesting. We presented this to the advisory board at the CTDA and they were didn't quite know how to respond. And they said well if you let people be their own archivist then we won't get any collections ever again. And we don't think that's true because most people aren't interested in being their own archivist. And they will be happy to give it to an organization that they think respects them. And they're, and their history, but some people want to do it themselves. Two minutes left. Really want to hear somebody respond to this. I'm chatting everyone. And you are welcome to disagree with us. Thank you, Cliff. There's also a cliff says there's also an issue about whether people want to be archived and accessible in the first place and do whom with or without the intervention of an archivist. And, as we Jeremiah says individuals can submit items to a Colorado State Library supported instance of Omega, and those are fed into the DPLA. Excellent. We'll have to talk later Lee. And so to respond to cliff, if people don't want to be archived, then might they take care of that in their lifetime instead of waiting until they die and having somebody else decide for them. Elizabeth Long has raised her hand Elizabeth. Yes, you can talk to us. Yeah, great. So I put something into the chat as well. So this is something we have been very concerned about group I'm in the black metropolis research consortium and we actually have a community archivist who's been doing a lot of outreach through the community about these issues and we've developed a resource portal to help them think through and we have some kind of pros and cons about, you know, keeping things yourself or giving them to an archive and a lot of, you know, what does it mean how do you talk to an archive, and what's the that language they're using and such so. So yeah, I think these things are really important. We'll have to be in touch later offline. Yeah, that would be great. Oh gosh, I think we're out of time. Scott conference says it's a big challenge for cultural heritage organizations in terms of decolonization. Sometimes it's not for us to say something ever should be archived by us. Which is why we think people can make their own decisions right, we can seek those partnerships that we can't force people to make those partnerships. Do we lose that content, because we couldn't make the partnership or do we give people an alternative way to preserve and tell their story. We are going to ask Paige if we are out of time is it 250 was the end point. Actually, I think we have until 255. Oh, okay, great. So have at it. I do want to, I do want to just respond to scouts. Comment there is that we've always said that institutions and whoever manages content in their repository has the ability to, you know, has responsibility to manage their own content. We always used to say their repository doesn't care what you put in as long as it's not a virus and you have the right to put it in there. Like you're not putting in some copyrighted New York Times that you don't have no right to do. I'm going to flip that a little bit and said we're really talking about agency here. Institutions have the agency over their collections beyond kind of five metadata fields that are kind of more technical metadata about what kind of content you're putting in plus a title to do with whatever they want they can put things up. They can take things down. They can make things private. They can decide to never put anything in. That's totally up to them. And we're not really policing what is going on with them beyond kind of giving suggestions or consulting about certain collections how to do things. So institutions retain agency without giving up too much autonomy to join the CTA and that has been a core principle since the beginning. So that's kind of not new for us. That's kind of what we're built on. So it's totally up to institutions individuals to participate and if they do what goes in and what doesn't. That's up to them. They don't need to explain it to us. And yes, of course, you'd think after a year and a half but no, any other comments. We are very, very honored and happy that we got a chance to talk about this in front of this large group. It's something that, as we say, has evolved from this idea of it's not our responsibility to we have to do something. Oh wait, we have to fix ourselves before we fix other people. And so, thank you for your comments thank you for everything else. The other connection that might be fruitful cliff says is that smaller arts organizations. There's a huge need there. Interesting that we just have spoken to very recently an arts organization that has gone defunct and they are no longer an institution can they join. We're going to let them and we're going to let them know those kinds of things are important. Yeah. Not just the, what we call the customary people, but people who are creating cultural heritage resources without really doing it on purpose. Well, I, I think we are about at time Greg. Let me thank you all Greg, Mike, Heather, Rachel, really fascinating conversation and one that we I think we ought to carry on in several directions I mean there's the fascinating set of things about personal digital archiving and how this relates to organizations like yours. There's the question of the extent to which you might be a fruitful model for work by other nodes within DPLA and sort of perhaps seeking greater consistency there. But I think you've, you've opened up a lot of very valuable questions and I, I thank you for that. Very much appreciate you being here. And I thank everybody who contributed good thoughts, questions and observations to the session as well. And now is we're going to just take a very, very short break like around for four or five minutes, and we are going to move on to the invited session with the clear fellows. So, I'll see you in a couple of minutes.