 They're recording, that's great. So I'd like to pass over to Lorna Campbell who will be talking about drawing the line over to Lorna. Thank you very much, Martin. And I've put my video on for a minute before I start talking just so I can say hello to y'all, but I'm going to turn it off now just to conserve bandwidth. So my name's Lorna Campbell. I'm a regular contributor to the FemmeD Tech Network and I'm speaking today from Glasgow in Scotland and this is where I'm talking to you from. Now I make no apology for the fact that this talk raises more questions than it answers. And like much in the world right now, the talk has evolved significantly over the last few weeks and months. The original inspiration for this presentation was a post I wrote for the FemmeD Tech open space during last year's OER19 conference. The open space sought to question dominant narratives of open and explore whose voices are included and excluded from our open spaces and practices. As Catherine Cronin reminds us, openness by its nature is highly diverse and contextual. We all experience openness from different perspectives and different positions of power, prejudice, privilege, and discrimination. For some of us, openness is part of our job, our research, our field of study. For some it's a philosophy, a personal commitment. For some it's political, for some emotional. For many, me included, it's a complex mix of all of the above. I'm very fortunate to experience openness from a position of relative privilege. I work at an institution with a strong civic mission and a real commitment to open knowledge, where my primary responsibility is to support engagement with open education and OER. I also contribute my labor to other organizations that support like-minded goals, sometimes as a volunteer, sometimes in a more formal capacity as a trustee, and sometimes just for fun. We all have a deep personal commitment to our open practice, to equity and social justice. We all want to be good citizens of the open community, making a positive contribution to the global commons. But when do the hours that we willingly devote to open education start to become unacknowledged, invisible, digital labor? How much does the open community rely on this invisible labor? And perhaps most importantly, how far does it exclude those who are unable or unwilling to contribute their labor for free? These are questions that many in the open knowledge domain are increasingly trying to address. One of the key concepts underpinning the new movement strategy being developed by the Wikimedia Foundation is knowledge equity, the commitment to focus on knowledge in communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege, and to break down the social, political and technical barriers, preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge. If the Wikimedia community is serious about honoring this commitment to knowledge equity, then it must also acknowledge the problematic issue of invisible labor. As open practitioners, the boundaries of our labor are complex and porous, and this has both positive and negative consequences for ourselves as individuals, community members, workers, activists and volunteers. These complexities have been thrown into stark focus by both the COVID-19 pandemic and the recent University and College Union industrial action, which focused on the quality, job security, fair workloads and fair pay. The strike highlighted the problems of exploitation, discrimination and precarity that exist right across academia and from which open education is far from immune. When our personal and political commitments and activism are so interwoven with an exploitative system, boundaries become blurred and it's hard to know where, if anywhere, to draw the line. How can we balance our agency as open practitioners and citizens of the global common with cognizance that it's our digital labor that sustains a system that is by turn inspiring and dispiriting, empowering and exploitative? These issues were encapsulated in a Twitter thread from the anonymous HE Reflections during the previous round of industrial action. One of the most pernicious aspects of stress, anxiety and burnout in education is often that it starts with individuals who work longer hours through enjoyment and an ethic of care, but at some point the organization captures this as core work which has to be done. As a result, the enjoyment, the agency is lost and the stress begins to grow, leading eventually to hate or exhaustion in some cases. And it creeps up on people so that they blame themselves. This is the failure of the system and any discussion of wellbeing or expert groups focusing on happiness misses a point completely. What starts with dignity and vocation is smashed by performativity, by human as resource and by an inability to see education as a community. And yet despite the toll taken by the exploitation of our invisible digital labor and their ethic of care, we all continue to do our best to go the extra mile, to pick up the pieces of our students and our colleagues. And nowhere has this been more apparent than in our collective response to the current coronavirus crisis. Colleagues in the UK returning from strike threw themselves into the task of supporting the online pivot while dealing with a new reality of working from home, struggling childcare, homeschooling, caring for elderly relatives and immunocompromised friends, while coping with financial insecurity and unprecedented stress. All of the emotional and effective labor has been contributed without question or complaint at the same time that some institutions are deducting strike pay from wages. And in other cases, making redundant the precarious staff who carry so much of the burden of this labor of care. There are no simple answers to any of the questions I've raised here. But I believe it's important that we do raise these critical issues and that we keep talking about them. So I'd like to invite conference participants to reflect on the nature of their own open practice and invisible labor. And if they feel so inclined to share their experiences and reflections at the FEMED Tech open space. Thank you very much. Thank you for that, Lorna. And bang on time as well. And I think we've got a moment to, if we can probably take one question before handing over to Josh. I've also put the transcript of that talk on my blog so I can drop the link of that into the chat as well. I did write it out because I found it really hard to keep to such a tight time limit. I think you're just going to have to bask in the thanks from our audience here. But I'm sure comments are open on your blog post. Yeah, comments are open and I'm happy to take comments on to them as well. Thank you for that, Lorna. Anyone who would like to comment is very welcome to do so with FEMED Tech and I'll drop the link there into the chat as well. Thank you very much, everyone. Thank you, Lorna. I think Lorna might be also racing off to another tab near us soon. The FEMED Tech quote session in France this weekend. But hopefully you will stay around because we've got some really interesting