 My name is Hilary Carter. I'm the VP of Research at Linux Foundation. A little bit about myself. I joined the LF in March this year, so I'm a newbie. This is my first open source summit. Prior to launching Linux Foundation research, I launched and ran a similar think tank called the Blockchain Research Institute, where we created a similar repository of insights on all things blockchain using implementation evidence, writing white papers and case studies, and doing so along industry lines. So that's a model that I have been compelled to replicate at the LF because there's a lot of utility in that way of conducting research and organizing it as we continue to publish projects. So, did anyone catch my five-minute walk on yesterday? So for those of you who were there, I'm sorry, I'm going to repeat a little bit of what I said yesterday about why we started this initiative and what we hope to achieve. So earlier this year, I was approached by Jim Zemlin and others from the LF to contemplate the idea of creating the definitive repository of data and insights specific to the open source paradigm, to tell the story of what open source is and what it isn't, and to take inspiration from some of the incredible body of research that was conducted just after 2000 by Krim Lakhani and Erik von Hippel and Benkler, and others. But that sort of thought leadership needs an upgrade and an update for the present day environments. And what is fascinating is that open source as a practice for mass collaboration at scale is not really widely known. We as practitioners or those who are on the front lines of this kind of innovation understand what's happening, but beyond our communities, there is not a lot of understanding about what's taking place. And I know that to be true about the blockchain ecosystem as well. So we want to create a knowledge base and in doing so create a knowledge network and work with our communities to build these valuable resources that we can all share. So that's what we're going about and why the Linux Foundation is suitable for this kind of research initiative is that we are on the front lines of open innovation. We are expanding into new industries. We are seeing new projects become open sourced and we are therefore in a unique position to conduct this kind of research. And seeing industries like even this year agriculture technology and gaming come under the umbrella of the LF is really quite exciting and these are stories that we really want to tell. We have unprecedented access to a community of subject matter experts, leading thinkers, senior decision makers at the world's largest technology companies and that is rare and it's special. And we intend to leverage that to the benefit of the community. We also as a nonprofit foundation are able to convene like mines and that same type of individual both very senior decision maker people from government at times and our contributor community and do so and create a forum for discussion and thought leadership. So we're in a position to do this and to do it well and so we're going to leverage this opportunity. So what is the value that we intend to create? Well the first thing we want to do is create a knowledge base. I mean the purpose of research is to create new knowledge and when we create new knowledge or when we create the good research is defined by questions that generate new research and more research and deeper research. So our purpose is to inform what is going on here and it's very difficult outside our individual technology areas to have a grasp at the scope of collaboration and the kinds of projects that are being worked on. So if we can create an easy way to inform both policy makers, decision makers, students and society at large about what is happening then that is an achievement. We also want to inspire a new generation of contributors new generation of participants and in storytelling and in contextualizing why open source matters to solving common problems we hope that we can bring new participants into our communities and build more diverse communities. We also intend to engage our ecosystem. We cannot do this alone and it provides us opportunities for new conversations for outreach and engagement is a big part of the plan and we think the value of research to get our communities involved and there's so many different ways that we can do that. We also hope to attract new organizations to the LF and expand our partnerships at every opportunity. We think what we do is special and this is one way to kind of broaden the community through evidence and data. We also want to position the LF as the center of thought leadership on open source. So these are the goals that we hope to accomplish through this program. As I mentioned yesterday the way we're going about doing this is along three sort of buckets of analysis. The first being exploring open source by industry vertical. Last week we published one of our first reports of 2021 the jobs report which is in its eighth year but we've been able to update that new format, new layout, new graphics, new social shareables and so on. For the education vertical there's a lot more to come because I think this is a new and a growing space as we saw with our open source program office survey. The education and academic sector is starting to get engaged in opening open source program offices. Very exciting. Next week we'll be publishing research, the baseline study, on the state of open source in financial services. So next week at open source strategy forum in London we'll be launching our research that we conducted earlier this year about what's the landscape for financial services companies. We focused on banks, hedge funds and asset managers and really like most industries consumption of open source for our ways contribution. So industry vertical and secondly technology horizontal. We will take very specific looks into individual technologies and describe what it is that is taking place, what the opportunities are, what the challenges are. We worked with Hyperledger to conduct a brand study which the results of which have been pre-released Daniela to members and will be released more broadly to the Hyperledger member community in October. That's an example of a kind of technology research piece that we'll do here at the LF. And finally for those issues that do not fall neatly into industry vertical or technology horizontal we call these ecosystem wide issues. We'll explore topics like diversity, equity and inclusion, management and legal issues, climate standards, things that apply quite broadly and there is no shortage of content. I think if we have one challenge at Linux foundation research it is scope creep and trying to prioritize. I was asked earlier today if our agenda is written in stone or what shapes the research agenda and so often we have to pivot by the issue of the day. How much work have we had to or how have our businesses had to align to something like a pandemic as an example or the executive order issued by the Biden administration on cyber security. I mean that can sometimes change the direction and change the priority of a business model and research is no different than that. So our models are to create research along a set of core research projects in which we'll focus on issues like cyber security, really big topics and priority topics that sometimes take a little bit longer to publish. And then we have shorter cycle projects of the kind we did with Phenos and Hyperledger projects that you can conduct in maybe four month cycles. A lot of LF projects may come to us and say we have a need for a survey. We want to work with LF research to create insights or explore a given hypothesis and we'll be very glad to do just that. So project and short form research describes the sort of shorter and smaller more focused projects that we can bring forward faster. And as I had alluded to previously, I believe very strongly that research is a team sport and it is something that we create together. Data and good quality data is often challenging to come by. Survey completes are challenging to come by, especially when we need knowledgeable individuals in a given subject matter. Not everybody has expertise in enterprise blockchain and being able to evaluate the different tenets of Hyperledger vis-a-vis other crypto platforms. You know, there's some specialized skill sets that we need to leverage. So how we go about collecting data differs by research project. So if you and your organization are in a position to share data on a given issue, if you're able to complete a survey for which you have some expertise, we'll be very appreciative. Thank you in advance. We will be sharing a lot of surveys. Survey fatigue is a potential risk, but there is no data without going out to market and fielding a survey. We do have a very good network within the Linux Foundation, a large subscriber base to our emails. And when we have Canvas, the community at large, we have tended to get very good and reliable sample. It can get tricky when you're looking for something very specific. As in we only want end users or we're studying end user velocity. That's a little bit more challenging. We can't Canvas the LF at large because we're going for a very focused dataset. Interviews are another way we're looking for contributions. Whether you contribute expertise anonymously or can go on record, interviews are very challenging to generate. If you work for a Fortune 500 or a publicly listed company, generally, anything that is published is going to have to run through a communications department and can take weeks and sometimes months to approve and it can get a bit sticky. So it's tough. But qualitative interviews are, they simply provide a richer perspective. It is wonderful when you can gather the insight of a senior person in an organization and get their thought leadership on a given issue. And anytime we can accomplish that, I think that's a win for everybody. We ultimately want to create a knowledge that you just can't get online that creates something unique that hasn't been published before and fresh insights on a new issue generally come out of qualitative interviews. And there is a certain demographic who will never do a survey. They will not complete a survey. Certain folks or senior people in particular, they're not going to spend 15 minutes on a survey. But they will potentially share their expertise in an interview. So we have to balance that dynamic. There are many ways to get involved in designing a research project. So if there's a topic that you know is on our agenda and you'd like to be part of influencing the design of the survey or doing a peer review, that is always an option and something I would strongly encourage. I think peer review at every level of the research process is important. Co-branding and sponsorship, if your organization is excited about a given topic and wishes to align your message with our research, that is definitely an opportunity that is also available to the community. Supporting DEI objectives, what I mean by that is as we go about the process of creating research, we have to keep in mind diverse objectives. Do we have enough interviews that comprise a diverse set of thinking? Diversity in thought, diversity in all facets. And sometimes we'll need help in finding the right people to achieve DEI objectives in the research process. It's not just the composition of our teams, but it's how our research is composed as well. We're trying very hard to accomplish this in our current DEI research, which will come out roughly in December. And authorship. I'm always looking for subject matter experts who would like to take ownership of a research paper and write a project. I've hired a couple so far this year. People I have worked with in the past, folks that Jim Zemlin has worked with. And so if you know of someone who wishes to author a research piece, if you want to chat about your own interests and how you can get involved, let's do it. I think talent is, it's not always easy to find, and open source talent is very specialized. And writing is challenging. I have worked with many skilled practitioners who understand code very well and they understand computing languages very well. But the written report to make something readable and to structure it well is a skill set unto itself. So when we can blend those skills of potentially both sides of the brain, we can come up with something terrific. But it can be very challenging. So skilled writers, send them my way. So here's how we go about launching a survey. We'll begin with a research plan, a project scope, and a mission and vision of a given piece of research. What's the hypothesis? Who is our target audience for survey response? We'll program and we'll test the survey out. We use SurveyMonkey as our survey instrument. We'll typically do a soft launch. And when we have our desired sample, which can range depending on the topic, depending on the size of the community, I think a good sample in some areas is 200 and in other areas it's 1,000. But there is a sort of sweet spot. My colleague Steve Hendrick, who does lead our quantitative process, he does like to have a sample anywhere ranging to 200 and 500 completes. We may at times choose to work with a panel provider to get our completes, in which case we're paying per complete. We will often go to an LF mailing list, a specific mailing list to try to find qualified respondents. And sometimes we will canvass more broadly. Going out on social media presents as challenges. Surveys are not without being gamed and lots of spam. And that is always a challenge whenever a survey is shared publicly. We use MarketSite as our analytics tool to generate our segmentation, our charts before they go into production. So rough deliverables that generate them in PowerPoint and Excel and PDF. But we will typically recreate those for professional publication and design. We create a number of optional deliverables. I'll describe our core set of deliverables, but if you wanted to create an e-book, for example, with our research team or an in-depth white paper, not just a survey, there are many ways we can create a bespoke research program. I want to briefly share a few of the software build materials results. If you were in Kate Stewart and David Wheeler's presentation earlier, this may come as a repeat. But we had a survey in the field for several months on software build materials readiness. And we'll publish the findings and analysis next month. But here's a preliminary view. We wanted to explore familiarity and maturity with respect to software build materials by organization, what capabilities are needed, some of the benefits, some of the concerns, and where do we go from here? What is the response to the executive order? What's happening in this space as one of our initial research pieces in cybersecurity? The survey was in the field for three months. We canvassed a worldwide audience. We translated the SBOM survey into six different languages. I believe it was Chinese, Japanese, Korean, French, German, and Spanish or Portuguese. I'm sorry, I can't remember which. I think it might have been Spanish. Anyhow, we had a decent response for some of our multilingual respondent, or multilingual respondents. We were looking for responses by technology consumers and user enterprises, producers, and organizations, including academia and standards organizations, IT organizations. And we're targeting a whole cross-section of IT decision makers, line of business leaders, and academics, and ideally decision maker level. Our screening criteria, I'm going to just jump over that to get to some of the results. In terms of familiarity with software bill of materials, there was excellent familiarity among SBOM innovators, less familiarity with some of those who we described as being laggards. Never heard of. There is certainly work to be done in terms of education around this particular tool and its purpose. In terms of production plans, those organizations who are producing SBOMs across all segments of the business, again, the innovators or SBOM early crowd are leading that sort of readiness element. There is work to be done though in terms of the urgency of getting organizations to comply. And as I was saying earlier, cybersecurity can be very challenging, imperative when it's not linked to either business models or revenues, and that often crises create change. And so in the executive order, doesn't necessarily create the change as quickly as we might have liked. Where and when will SBOMs be produced, mostly at the production level, and either during software delivery or software builds. Again, there's still people who just don't know, but they were familiar enough with software bill of materials, but they just didn't have certainty about how to answer specific questions. A production format at SPDX is a leading known format, and that might be because we canvas a large number of people within the Linux Foundation community who are familiar with SPDX because of its LF origins. And team LFT members associated with the origins of SPDX, but certainly other tools like Cyclone DX are fairly well established. I'm going to move on in the interest of time. We'll publish more details on the SBOM readiness survey in October. Yeah, not specific to Cyclone. Oh, sorry, repeat the question. Yeah, can we comment on the familiarity of Cyclone DX versus SPDX? At this point, I cannot, so I'm not able to answer that question with any kind of accuracy, so I'll hesitate in doing so. But if we were to look at different tools and who responded, that could be a study unto itself. Thank you. Good question. So what is on the agenda and what do our research deliverables look like? So this is what is coming down the pipeline. SBOM readiness is coming out next month. For Linux Foundation, Platinum and Gold members, we have an exclusive set of research that is specific to policy insights in both the United States and the European Union. What senior leaders in government, legislators, chiefs of staff, and senior members of government departments are thinking about technology issues? How do they see tech priorities? What are their constituents concerned about what's on their agenda? And what was very interesting was that Republicans and Democrats, for example, when looking at cyber, view cyber very differently. And there's a strong link in the US policymaker environment to connect cyber priorities with the electrical grid of all things. They don't typically view cyber in the same lens that we might. We think about cyber in terms of build environments and patches and supply chains. And I think policymakers view technology issues in terms of what is going to upset my constituency and am I going to get reelected? And when the grid goes down, I think constituents get mad fast. And that has a funny way of playing it into sentiment in levels of government. So apologies if you're not an LF Gold or Platinum member. This particular research will not be available to you, but we do have a whole lot of content that will be publicly available. Our open source program office survey results were published just on Monday by the to-do group. We are also conducting a supplementary research paper on the OSPO, in terms of the OSPO evolution and OSPO archetypes. That's going to come out in November. What's nice about doing a research report following the publication of a survey is that our interviewees who contribute qualitative analysis to research can comment on the findings of the survey. And then you put everything together and say, you know, this really is the state of the OSPO in 2021. Phenos is publishing their research on state of financial services next week. Hyperledger will be presenting its findings to Hyperledger members. So to foundation at KubeCon, they're going to present storage and data trends in 2021. Our DEI research is coming out in December. And an updated report in collaboration with the Laboratory of Innovation Science at Harvard, measuring deployment of free and open source software. And private and public companies will come out later this year as well. So here's how we go about publishing our research initiatives and the core deliverables that you'll expect to see. Typically, we announce a research project. We'll write a blog about it. We will create social media posts, especially where there's a survey and we're looking for public respondents. We'll often mention a project in our newsletter and we'll publish the opportunity on linux.com. And here's what our blog announcement looked like for the Hyperledger brand survey, which boy, I think we did that in May. In May, we published that. Yeah, time flies. So depending on the project, we want to create widespread awareness of a given piece of research to try to engage the community in the process. Our deliverables will comprise an in-depth research report. So next week, you'll see the inside contents of State of Open Source and Financial Services. We did this partnership in collaboration with Phenos and member organizations including Scott Logic, We Pro, and GitHub. So we had a whole committee come together to help design the survey, create a set of priorities and questions for qualitative interviews, and come together and put together a unique perspective and some impressive thought leadership from a group of experts that I think they'll still provide some value. It also creates a baseline for where the financial services industry is in open source against which we can compare changes over time. So that's the objective of this research. All of our reports comprise a forward by a subject matter expert in this case, the forward written by Gabriele Colombro who's joined us here today. Thank you, Gab, for writing the forward. An executive summary for people who are consuming research on the go. Sometimes it's not possible to reach an 80-page document, but the executive summaries are certainly quite handy. And that's something that typically differentiates our reports from some other types of research. Analysis, we want each project to have some actionable conclusions and to stimulate ideation, strategy formation, and next steps. Because we do think that our work needs to be purpose-driven and to have thoughts about, okay, now what? It's no point in having survey says, what does all mean and what can we do next? We are publishing most projects under Creative Commons license and we'll have citation information for all of those reports that are publicly available and you want to include them in essays, media, etc. What I love about research is the tangible utility. Produce PDFs, put them off, read them on the plane, and they live forever. Our deliverables often include a presentation of survey findings. We'll produce a PDF of our survey results. This is an example of the design work that the LF is doing. And this page is simply a summary of the demographics of our phenose research. Infographics, these are terrific cross-utility deliverables that help broadly disseminate the ideas and the findings of a given research project. So these tiles can be repurposed. They can be put into slides. They can be shared as content on social channels. They're colorful. They help visual learners consume the content quickly. So we're quite pleased. This was an idea and a styling that was initiated by Derek Weeks, the new CMO who has just joined Linux Foundation. Here is a highlight of just how pretty one of those infographics looks in a PDF. So in the Ospo survey, 51% said increase in funding for open source initiatives is somewhat or very likely this year, or very or somewhat likely this year. And it's just a talking point around which other initiatives can kick off. But I think they do serve a purpose to share high-level findings quickly and in a highly consumable way. From the jobs report, two-thirds of developers need more training to do their jobs. Good stats, you know. No shortage of calls to action come through these. And sorry about this. This is hot off the press. Again, it relates to our financial services report. I don't yet have a production-ready version of this tile. But a data point, 15% of employees in financial services are unclear of their FOSS contribution policies. Gets you thinking. We also are committed to providing links to open data sets. So that if you want to tinker around with the data, if you want to see if you can come up with insights, certainly in our S-bomb research, for example, on what a given population thinks, if they happen to choose Cyclone versus SPDX, what can you find? And those data sets will be published on data.world. We'll remove all personally identifiable information, and you're free to pull either the Excel spreadsheet or the CSV files and use them as you see fit. Oh, I should say they'll also be under CDLA permissive, 2.0 license. So our agenda, insights in the EU. Yeah, I explained that briefly about ballast research. This is the research that is for gold and platinum members only on policy sentiments around technology. This will send out a newsletter and get a sense of what different political parties think on given issues. And really why we're doing this is, if there is some dangerous piece of legislation that is whispering about the corridors of the halls of power in either Europe or the United States, it might be great for us to know about that ahead of time. And if anybody is on a tear, we'd love to have a conversation with that legislator who might be upset or concerned about an issue. And we have this opportunity for a conversation before things become potentially difficult for our sector and our methodologies. We are very committed to understanding the economics of open source and the value of open source, especially when organizations move from proprietary to open. So what are the value economics? And how do we measure the economics of open source? Sometimes it's intrinsic, but other times it has real material dollar value. So saying earlier to Daniela, we were describing the value of open solutions that connect business models and actually help achieve ROI. It's actually hard to find, but we want to try to better understand the levers around economic value when technologies are open, how business success metrics change, and how are new markets created by this decision? Securing software supply chains, or should I say hardening the software supply chain? This is a top priority at Linux Foundation this year. And again, I think a lot of this priority will come down to understanding the economics of risk, the economics of cyber risk, the cost of inaction, or the cost of a breach. I saw a few years ago the financial services sector move quite quickly on climate issues because of economics. The economics of insurance claims led to collaboration by a number of financial services organizations. An initiative called the Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures. As insurance claims were mounting and climate risk and climate damages were escalating exponentially over decades, the insurance companies and certainly pension funds were starting to get a little bit nervous, that they needed better data to understand climate risk and how it relates to market risk and potential legal action by unit holders. Unit holders in Australia were suing their pension funds because they weren't doing enough due diligence about the holdings within the funds themselves. How much climate risk was exposed to these individual holdings within a portfolio? Were these organizations on the path of hurricanes? Were they in flood risk zones? Were they in areas that are at risk of forest fire? What other kinds of climate risk are they? Are they carbon generators? What's that carbon picture and how does that impact economics? So if we bring that argument forward to security, we might be able to inspire our laggards in cyber too, as David Wheeler says, eat their vegetables. How do you convince people to eat their vegetables sometimes it takes a health crisis for change and we don't want a health crisis when it comes to supply chains. And in terms of other projects that we'll focus on, this is what's coming down the industry vertical tech horizontal and ecosystem pipeline. I shall say because we're still very much in a pandemic that public health issues and looking at the adoption challenges have come some COVID tools, I think is a very interesting area of study. We have technologies that are incredibly powerful, but there is a fear of tech and there is a distrust or a mistrust of technologies. We have an application in Canada that was developed by the team at Shopify. It was donated to the government of Canada, rolled out 12 Canadians, but the download rate was not effective, shall I say. That same tool was then donated to be hosted at the Linux Foundation, should other societies, governments in countries where they just didn't have the opportunity to code up a COVID notification app, it's there for access, it's there for the world. Why was there better adoption of a technology like Green Shield in Ireland and the UK? What's going on in our different regions and why is adoption of some tools better than others? Entertainment is such an exciting industry vertical to think that the Academy Software Foundation is coming together and all the film studios are collaborating and then competing on the creative side, but let's work on common problems where we share common costs. Automotive and mobility, very important industry vertical. We need to have more software definition in these areas and move on from combustion and try to leverage some digital technologies in the process. And climate risk and reporting, this is a passion project of mine. In the tech horizontal area, 3D printing and open standards I think is a fascinating area. I am mesmerized by what the capabilities are with 3D printing and how it's converging with other technologies like blockchain where the asset that's transferred on a blockchain network that's specific to 3D printing is the computer aided design file itself. Much like I would send a crypto asset from my wallet to your wallet, I will securely share my computer aided design file as I pitch for the design of a given aircraft part, for example. And that provenance is secured when there's a recall. Ah, recalls are better managed. We know which designers are creating very effective parts, like fascinating stuff. And since we're in space on Mars and the International Space Station, it's really handy when you can print a much needed part on site. Linux kernel authority, that's just a fascinating story. What's the velocity? What is our community want to know about the widespread adoption of Linux in these exciting areas? As Chris DiBona said, the interplanetary operating system where Linux is operating on Earth in orbit and on other planets. That's a compelling and very inspiring story. And in truth, before I joined this organization I had no idea that that's how Linux was impacting the digital economy and SpaceX and everything automotive. This is news to me and I have been in tech for quite some time, though not in operating system, not in Linux at all. So fascinating. We do want to explore blockchain technology for all of its exciting opportunities and this is a tech which suffers from misinformation, confusion with crypto, regulatory complexities and sometimes needless ones. When you're talking about supply chain applications or vaccine traceability or food traceability, maybe there's some applications in cybersecurity where hashing the identity of a developer who has certified the security of a packet could be realized. We don't know. We're going to investigate. Looking at software defined industry transformation, if other industries follow the model that Telecom followed or its path to becoming software defined, then we have an opportunity to potentially reach our climate targets. So that's just a snapshot of the art of the possible. Could this change slightly? Yes, but this is what I'm proposing to the Linux Foundation Research Advisory Board tomorrow, which gathers here in the morning. In terms of ecosystem projects, super coders, Jim Zemlin is very excited to explore this topic. Who are our maintainers and what is going on in their worlds? Are they stressed out? Are they overwhelmed? Who are they? What projects are they working on? Is it possible that we have a tremendous burden on too few people and how do we remedy that? So getting a sense of what our maintainer community looks like at the highest levels I think will be insightful. Moving from intersource to open source, yeah, like how do we, is this a method for change and how do we leverage intersource activity and encourage that or what are the trends? How have organizations gone from intersource to open source? What can we learn? Mentorship, Shua Khan came to me and said, we'd like to know more about the value of our mentorship programs. So let's have a conversation, a survey. Let's find out what the economic value is of mentorship programs. How well are we doing? So we'll be working with Shua on that project. Same thing with salaries on certifications. You've taken a cert, how has it changed your life? What are the economics of that? Was it, you know, is that useful data for organizations to consider certifying at the largest scale? Is it a question? Yes. Yeah, it's probably super maintainers. Yeah, I mean, we'll see. In truth, I'm still learning what the scope of that project could be. And to say, what are the issues? And so part of the research development process is to have conversations say who and what. Should we be focusing on what questions should we be asking? Yeah. Yeah, so that is what we plan to bring forward in 2022, hoping to publish core research at least one every six months. And four projects a quarter. Now, as our resources maybe be maxed out, our team could expand to address demand. We may find we have to reprioritize, depending on a given project coming to us and say, would you mind swapping this one out with that one? But these are all conversations that are, you know, not set in stone, but this is just a snapshot of what we can and would like to do at this point in time. And I am now available for your questions. That brings me to the end of my presentation. Thank you very much for your attention. Yes. Yeah. In fact, the 3D printing project, there are standards being created around that, open standards in 3D printing. There are open standards in, there are standards groups in blockchain, for example, creating standards on transport, like a standardized way to do a bill of lading that could be industry-wide, something like a, it was led, the initiative was led or influenced by, oh my goodness, Head of Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, Daniella, former head, Ron Resnick, who did the work on SIM cards and standardizing SIMs for the telecom industry. So there's a lot to explore there and it really is important, because standards are, you know, they create value. Visual identity, oh, sorry. Yes, yeah, thank you. Digital identity at Linux Foundation Public Health. Trust over IP standards. In financial services, not within the LF, but an identity standard that's being used within the Canadian financial services sector is led by Securekey, an LF member organization where the big Canadian banks collaborated around know-your-client standards, so that if my identity was verified at RBC Royal Bank when I went to apply for a mortgage and then I wanted a credit card at Bank of Montreal, one bank's validation and certification of my identity is accepted by all. So that's a massive cost savings. So yeah, I love the idea of standards and collaboration around standards. Yes. Is this really about the inner-source, the inner-source was the appropriation of open-source approaches to the proprietary software in general? Yeah. And so I want to say, like bringing the inner-source back to open-source, the open-source is already taking the open-source back. I think it's talking about companies moving towards more of the... Exactly, yes. How inner-source... Yeah, I'll try to clarify the question with the answer in that the research project that was proposed on inner-source as a path to open-source is really about how an organization evolves its participation in open-source more broadly outside of the walls of its organization. And the first thing an organization can do is participate in a sort of inner-source collaboration on technologies that will only be used by their organization. And then once they get the idea of how bringing different parts of an organization together to work on a common problem, they think, well, what if we move outside of our organization walls and contribute outside of just our organization? How is that an almost an essential step in creating the culture that's necessary for open-source? And if you can't get inner-source, it could be that you can't get open-source either. Well, I think... Are we at time? I think I'll wrap it. Thank you very much. I'd invite you all to ask questions, get in touch with me on email, on Slack, LinkedIn, whatever. I'd be delighted to talk to you about research anytime. Thank you so much.