 Welcome, everyone. My name is Lauren work and I'm one of the members of the software preservation networks research and practice working group. The software preservation network was launched in 2016 to raise awareness, build capacity and foster collective actions that engage a broad range of stakeholders who have an interest in the work of software preservation. The research and practice working group was established in 2017 to identify information gaps and opportunities for conducting research with potential for contributing to the field. My working group colleagues Jessica Benner and Wendy Hagenmeier will join me to present the findings of our survey and interview based study of software preservation service providers in expansive category that includes librarians archivists preservation specialists, technologists and other professional roles. The results of the study are documented in our 2022 white paper, supporting software preservation services in research and memory organizations. The publication and research and practice working group also reflects the dedicated work and contributions of our colleagues Seth Erickson, Crystal Williford and Monique LeSaire. Before we discuss the detailed findings of our study, it's important to establish a baseline to understand the importance of software preservation. As we note in the study, material and conceptual bounds of software can be malleable and can vary a great deal across a variety of organizational preservation contexts. However, some major aspects for CNI community members to consider include how software preservation affects the reproducibility of scholarly research. This is a quote from one of our study participants who works at a university based research center that reflects the important connection between research and the code that supports that research. This sentiment was repeated in various iterations from study participants and has also been reflected in studies by Vicky Rampen and Sarah Nguyen in their investigating and archiving the scholarly get experience or ICH project, which also has a CNI project briefing recorded in October of 2022. Other important components of software preservation for CNI community members to consider include things like the continued technological development related to software, including large language models and artificial intelligence and scholarship and across society. So thinking about preservation challenges but also the need for ethical development and frameworks for working with and preserving these types of tools. And finally, the connection of software preservation to organizational mission and strategy. So thinking about questions like what's important to your organization, your scholarship landscape and your collections, how to software preservation align with and help these priorities. How will organizations understand and prepare to preserve and provide access to materials that rely on software to meet your organizational mission over time. I will now pass it over to my colleague Jessica, who will provide more details about the structure and methods of our study. So what did we do and what have we learned. Since 2019, the research and practice working group has worked on a study of software preservation service providers, consisting of a survey and interviews. The project was motivated by the fact that software preservation is an emerging field that includes people across varying roles and institutions, but lacks significant definition as a field itself. The survey and interviews help us elaborate the types of practices that can fall under the umbrella of software preservation and helped us answer questions like what software service software preservation services are cultural heritage professionals currently providing. What are the gaps in those services, and what are the opportunities for future service provision. In particular, the interviews are helpful for understanding the conceptions of software at play and software preservation work, and how these conceptions track with particular categories of practice. There are many people involved in providing software preservation services, some of whom work at your institutions. The survey and interviews engaged with people who identified as software preservation service providers from academic libraries, government agencies, museums, and technology companies who worked as librarians archivists conservators curators technology specialists administrators researchers and programmers. Only one person in our survey had a position titled specifically of software preservationists. So this work is being done in a variety of roles across these organizations, these institutions. In our paper, we generated a handful of personas to help represent a range of professional contexts skills and responsibilities that emerged in the interviews. There are a research data librarian at an academic library who manages the institutional repository and focuses on reproducibility. A digital preservation librarian with inadvertent software collection and inadvertent software collection in the backs of books, content in the institutional repository and special collections. The commercial software preservationists focused on preserving the software developed by the company where they work, and a digital preservationist at a European National Library, working under a legal mandate within a well staffed unit. While the variety of professional roles holding responsibility for this work is much broader. These four represent some of the key motivations for doing software preservation, reproducibility, long term digital access, and the legacy and complying with legal mandates. In terms of actually providing software preservation services. Most of the organizations. We heard from do not have the capacity to provide specific services for software preservation, and those that do tend to tended to provide them infrequently and actual providing the actual act of providing access to software was particularly rare for the folks we spoke to. At the same time, there are varying motivations for and desires for providing these services, including supporting software as as a software as a support for other items in the collection. So needing software to access those other items, having software as part of the cultural record, and helping with reuse and scientific reproducibility. In order to do this work we also learned that institutions and individuals need to have a broad and diverse range of skills, including both knowledge of software uses and software development and the software development process, and also but also understanding archival best practices. The next part of our work was to identify barriers for those who are providing services and I'll cover those in the next slide, but one of the big issues for the profession or the field itself is a lack of consensus on what software and software preservation really mean. One interview we spoke more specifically about generating a community model that would help us collaborate. This lack of consensus hinders network building and other community oriented tasks that can help build the capacity for various cultural heritage and memory institutions to begin providing these services and justify hiring dedicated positions or organizing dedicated training. We identified six barriers across three levels. Three of these barriers were at the institutional level. A lack of dedicated labor and talent is the most urgent barrier to software preservation in this institutional category, and it's important because it has an impact on many other barriers we've identified. Institutions with workers attending to their software collections have capacity to take practical action, consider legal questions and build technical experimental and collaborative skills across more than one employee. This issue exacerbates the professional level barrier of conceptualization that I mentioned in the previous slide. If one employee from a small organization has time to participate in professional wide conversations about software preservation. They see a very different problem space and set of shared action items than a team of participants from an institution comparatively rich in staff time and expertise. As the participants explained their institution is not considering providing software preservation services in the future, because the requirements are beyond the scope of what we have the resources for. And that's less about the technological hardware resources and more about the human resources. Barriers at the individual level were also identified and relate to institutional resource access and community based knowledge sharing. These providers may have a limited influence or institutional perspective to best align their software preservation aims with the mission and goals of their employers. In other words, these individuals generally lack authority to correct institutional barriers related to strategic alignment and staffing, and may lack explicit responsibility to work on software preservation at all. According to the data, good practices for software preservation means having shared understandings about repeatable workflows for collecting preserving and providing access to software and software dependent content and sustainable techniques for cultivating and sharing the skills required to do this work over time. The lack of documented shared understanding about the workflows and skills required to carry out this work is a barrier that limits individual service providers every day. These professional, institutional and individual barriers often reinforce one another in a sort of vicious cycle and barriers that appear at one level may be more effectively addressed at other levels. Our report ends with a forward looking chapter with a set of recommendations across five different themes. Representation in the field of software preservation, defining the field for the field, networking and community building, informal and formal learning, and shared infrastructure and model practices. I want to emphasize that we all have a role to play in making software preservation services more achievable. There is much to be done, so I will let Wendy wrap up our video with some specific action items that you can take at your institution. Based on the findings from our study, we'd like to offer five actionable recommendations for CNI community members. First, identify strategic objectives, services and collections within your organization that depend on new or historical software. For example, data intensive computational research activities, research data sets, scientific software and reproducibility initiatives, archival and special collection services and virtual reading rooms, open educational resources and digital learning objects programs, or initiatives related to the ethical use of artificial intelligence. Two, consider the personnel and resources you could provide to keep your organization's software and software dependent strategic objectives, services and collections running. For example, consider incorporating software curation and preservation skills and expertise into existing and emergent job descriptions. Grant employees time to build those essential software curation and preservation skills. Convene discussions within your organization about how your team's work depends on software. Three, analyze conversations among your peers and across CNI about kickstarting software preservation services if you haven't already. Can you identify peers who are working on this? What barriers do they face? What unique internal capabilities does your organization have that might contribute to collective solutions? Number four, invest in collaborative collection development, research agendas or oral history initiatives to document the participation of women and individuals with diverse racial, ethnic, linguistic and cultural backgrounds in the creation and the creative use of software. If collecting or preserving software itself seems out of reach, consider collecting documentation of software's cultural impact or oral histories with underrepresented software developers to promote public awareness of the diverse individuals who create and use In doing this work, build upon and cite the research of scholars such as Charlton McElwain. And finally, consider joining your peers in international collaborations such as the Software Preservation Network, Software Heritage or the Software Sustainability Institute. We all have a stake in comprehending, curating and preserving the software that underlies so much of our operations and our collections. It's our responsibility and our opportunity to ensure the ethical use of this software to make fiscally sound, sustainable investments in the software's use and reuse over time, and to empower the next generation of end users and glam workers to understand the software driven world we're creating. We look forward to engaging with you and your teams in software preservation community spaces and conversations to come. Thank you. We invite you to explore our paper and reach out to the Software Preservation Network with any questions and ideas.