 I mean, I really think of open education as being in a territory. What you're opening up, you may open up to underrepresented people, but you may also open it up to people who are just looking for another territory to claim. So I think real care and humility. I think those two qualities are the most essential ways to safeguard against exploitative practice. And being attentive when you're called out, when you've made mistakes, everybody makes mistakes. It's how you deal with the mistakes that makes a difference. I think you also have to question your own preconceived notions about what knowledge is and should be. And if you're getting a lot of pushback from Indigenous people about what you're putting out there or other underrepresented communities, think very, very carefully about why that is and listen. My name is Daniel Justice. I'm a citizen of the Cherokee Nation and born and raised in Colorado in the US. And I currently work on traditional ancestral and unceded Muslim territory at the University of British Columbia. Knowledge, as I understand it, is never just about individuals. It is about communities. It's about genealogies. It's about histories. Community creates knowledge just as individuals create knowledge that then expand or sometimes contract the knowledge capacity of the community. So I think community has to be at the heart of our understanding of knowledge production and knowledge dissemination. When we're talking about communities, multiple communities in dialogue, then we have to think very much about relationships of power and how power also impacts knowledge production, knowledge maintenance, but also knowledge dissemination, who decides what knowledge should be shared, to what end and why. And all of those kinds of questions are not just about community, but also about that tension between community and individual. I don't think that all knowledge is meant for all people. I think a lot of it is, and I think accessibility to a lot of knowledge is really important. But there is a really extractive mentality at the heart of the idea that all things should be available to all people. Because what that usually means is that the ideas and resources of marginalized people are available for extraction from the powerful. I think it's a myth as it is that all knowledge is available, because it's not. It never has been. And so I think we have to have more of a conversation about why certain knowledge should be widely available and why certain knowledge maybe shouldn't. And that would put us into conversation with indigenous protocols around knowledge as well. The archive is always problematic when it comes to indigenous peoples. Because so much of what was collected in the archive was racist from its inception. So a lot of the work that we have to do is interrogate the archive. And oftentimes what's not in the archive is at least as important as what's present. But that's not to say that the archive doesn't matter. And I think any time we're looking to understand which sources are legitimate, which ones are problematic, which ones are actually outright dangerous, I think a singular approach is never going to be effective. So we have to constantly question what is the material that we're looking at? Who is the source? What motivated the source? Where does it get its authority? So if people are really interested in decolonizing open education, they got a lot of work to do. It's not just a matter of inclusion. It's actually questioning the very foundations of what knowledge is in the academy, but also in society at large. And thinking very much about how power informs influences and limits the possibility of a much more humane and just approach to learning, to knowledge, and to understanding.