 Hello. Hello. Can people hear me? We can. Excellent. Excellent. I always forget to turn my chat off and then, you know, all sorts of wonderful people send me messages during my talks as the form. What are you talking about? And then anyway, um, so I've turned that off. Hopefully you can see my screen. It looks purple. Well, now it looks white with purple with purple, even better. You can see that. The ecosystem e-bits, if that's all right, and hopefully there'll be something interesting there. And the economic sounds dry, but really it's a huge driver of what we do. So this is what I'm going to talk about. And here's a picture of an ecosystem. Look at it in its beautiful glorious richness. So I want to look at the incentives that people have that are in our project and look at some of the different kinds of things. So I start, of course, with volunteers, people who get involved there. And there are several basic human interaction types. And this sort of kin selection, this mutualism, share and share alike is an important way that people interact. And, you know, I don't want to do anything to diminish that, but I think there are often other motivations that help here. So it's not just the fun and the friendship and the, um, that sort of stuff, but also people love to get mentoring and they learn to learn things, improve their CV, they can get certified. Interestingly, people used to get job titles in the open office days and be able to charge money for being the lead of whatever open office conferences. Lots of people love their native languages. And so they transfer that, you know, mutualism of love nation into the project and they do a great job making it work in Welsh or whatever. And some people care passionately about software liberty. Personally, they do that and other people care, you know, deeply about giving something freely to, you know, for people who can't afford it otherwise. And lots of people in the ecosystem, you know, the ecosystem, I talk about companies companies that don't really exist. Foundations don't really exist either. It's just a group of people who work together and, you know, often get paid obviously, but there's still a whole load of individuals that it's good to see that. So it's in this volunteers and then there's the rest of the ecosystem, which broadly works on reciprocity. You know, I pay you something and you'll do something for me, you know, something like this and this is another very fundamental. I want one of the three major relationship types that at least Steven Pinker pulls out in his thinking. And so I'll get through some of these different kinds. So first of all, the corporate contributors. They get customers to pay the money and they get goods and services back. Obviously, the customers get that. And then they give this back to the community. They publish it back as FOS. They embed it in the community. These are the good guys, I hope. And hopefully you know these people. You know, there's Red Hat, CIB, Lonido, Agalia, some of these people are no longer there, but there are a lot of people contributing there into the ecosystem. We should be thanking them. Of course, perhaps that's not entirely altruistic. They also have goals such as, you know, reducing maintenance costs, motivating their staff and fundamentally marketing. You know, I think the contribution back to a project is an important part of showing competence and, you know, certainly to larger customers that is perhaps absent elsewhere. So then there are a whole lot of people who treat a free labor office as a compliment to their business. So if you read Joel on software, he has a whole load of things about open source and complimentary products. So here, LibreOffice forms only part of the offer. It's LibreOffice plus something. And that plus can be all sorts of things. I'll look at some on the next page. But broadly, if you're charging for something that includes LibreOffice, your motivation is to get your compliment, the other bit, the price of that right down. Ideally to zero because you have a choice. You can either, you know, be paying something for LibreOffice and something for me or you can be getting it all for you and very much less for LibreOffice. So you see there is a logic to not contributing back. If you see offer LibreOffice is a compliment to your business. There are a large number of projects and uses of LibreOffice where this is the case. And people try to get that cost down. It's remarkably popular. So very, very often people will sell services around a free LibreOffice deployments. And the whole use case and the financials and the model is based entirely on having the cost saving from gratis. Which then creates more money to be spent on migration and training. I think this is a particularly self defeating way of doing it because selling consultancy this year, rather than a long term product relationship over 20 years is just selling yourself way short. Why not get that money, you know, the next year and the next year and the next year. But still, it does happen a lot. So, you know, as we talk about marketing and how that affects the ecosystem, a tag, you know, is a particularly simple way to clarify whether that might be okay, you know, so I know personal or unsorted or whatever, making it clear that actually, you know, the top guy here where nothing, you know, nothing much goes back to the project is really not cool. And this, this strategy used by billion dollar first world companies, I've been amazed to see people unwilling to pay, you know, for any fixes, because well, you know, we followed upstream as a looking like a volunteer and maybe someone will fix it for us. We have people using the development additional code and deploying that in hosting environments and charging people money for it, left and right. And of course, that's, you know, license allows that. That's okay. But it's again getting that cost of the compliment your service right down to zero. And of course we see individuals, and particularly more so in the open office times, selling support services to people. And we literally from to support service which was just filing bugs in the in the open office bugzilla, and then perhaps hassling a son engineer to do it or trying to hold up releases until those bugs are fixed with effectively no competence, no no engineering competence behind that and no contribution to Libra underneath that, but still quite a successful model and we'll look at some of these. I think that's obviously a lot cheaper. And so, yeah, I mean, so of course in terms of then prime trying to pretend you have a roadmap or that you're actually going somewhere. You need them to, you know, do a fair bit of work to try and work out what other people are going to do for you for free in advance and then tell people, that's what they're going to get and you know you can predict these things. I think companies have trouble predicting what they're going to do anyway so it's it's not like if there's a few errors in your guess is that it will go really wrong and say the hope someone else fixes your bugs product here. And it's easy to point the finger other people and say that sucks but it's also you. So the problem, you know, here I am I'm using open Suza I'm not not paying for enterprise supported Linux desktop and that kind of sucks, you know, like I mean it's, it's, it's not optimal. And, you know, some amount of the argument the gratis Libra office is really vital is actually a demand for free compliments, and ultimately demands not have to contribute or not not be encouraged to contribute and continue with that model as an example of this. So, you know, as in products comes with available at no extra charge the profits online or collaborate online. And you can look at that in various different ways it's good that they're distributing our software, but it's also a great shame that they're not, you know, for contributing anything back in whatever way that that's, you know, would be best. Not only only only people doing this, but they have a pretty website. So there you go. There's another model which is even more. Well, perhaps, perhaps more pathological I don't know. So, when it comes to competitive tendering. There is a very easy way to reduce the price and ensure that you win. It's essentially either leverage the community used to be one way that I think advocates would call this, but basically it's been very low and hope someone else fixes the issues for you. And so you know you put a very small amount into a thing and of course your bid is always going to be cheaper than people who actually do the job. And you know offer a for a real real service. And so in this case you don't actually get more money for yourself, like it's not all going to the individual. It's just disappearing from the whole ecosystem, you know, like we lose lose that other half the true cost of fixing and providing the service. And yeah, so I mean this, you know, I'd like to think that at least someone is getting rich off our work in the other in the other environment but in this one with you know like no one wins. And a really price prominent examples around the world this going on, particularly in France. But also if you consider the, the extreme version of this where effectively you charge nothing at all, which is ultimately where this goes to in the limit. That also demonetize it as what was potentially an opportunity to contribute significantly to the graphics. Here's another model. This is the differentiated low contribution model. So you take the software. And then you differentiate you post it somewhere else on an unclear base you make it difficult for code changes to go back. You ask for help and mentoring and you ask for fixes for your problems. Sometimes even raise funds from governments to create a local office that is the one for your, your, you know local area. And you don't engage in any code because I suppose you have to eventually in an unusable form. And you don't engage the community or contribute anything, which is essentially creating a semi proprietary local version now this is very, there are huge advantages to this it's then very easy to differentiate you have a clear message we are the local version we are the red flag, you know we are the Chinese government version, you know we are the official something or other and it works better and Chinese and all this sort of thing. And we see this today in Taiwan with OSS II, but it seems it's a popular model, it provides instant differentiation. And, well, there you are, some people do that. TDF, of course, is an economic entity here, I guess it's generalized reciprocity but we expect people to donate or give to give in return for this this office suite that we've given them the promise is something like this you know, we TDF created and gave you an office suite so join us and contribute to making it better. Of course there's a couple of open questions there in the footnotes. You know, so the degree to which TDF creates the value that it shifts is open to question. And, you know, the perception that donating, then goes to create new feature function is also currently open to question, but at least TDF is an economic entity in its own ecosystem with a effectively free or donation funded product. And that's great because I mean TDF does loads of hard to fund otherwise work. Let's call it that. You know, there are wonderful stuff down every day with donations from our generous donors, which are really good and we would struggle to do otherwise but even so, it's a small percentage of the development work that comes through that route. Other economic models book authoring. Perhaps there's a smaller market interestingly prints book sales are actually up, which is weird. And our documentation team, I guess fills the much of this gap, ODF authors raises money and uses that revenue to help fund documentation and various other cool things. Interestingly, the pressures that you want there are you know if you're selling physical books you want fewer major releases of Libra office so you have longer print runs serving more people. And face change, because that requires remaking screenshots, and you know a slower release schedule is generally appreciated to try and keep it because the more cool things we do the more we devalue the value of their asset which is the book which is which is interesting. There's lots of other models out there I mean like selling conference tickets raised significant money for GNOME obviously in a global pandemic it doesn't. But I think the middle project, you know makes loads of money through training large groups of teachers and conferences. You can sell news the sorts of other sort of economic ways that you can engage in the ecosystem. So brands and trademarks I talk a lot about brands. I'm sorry, but this is partly why. So this recently for whatever reason the document foundation lapse the trademark for Libra office vanilla in the in the app store so we couldn't use that anymore. So we pulled it and we put, we just left collaborative office in there so this is the Apple app store. And this is daily numbers and you'll see these graphs have slightly different scales on here. About 150 or so seats a week that we normally sell. And in the week that it was down in a collaborative office, unfortunately a slightly different price. So maybe the number you know so this 18 to 150 is probably a bit larger. So, you know, looking back I should have we should have done a head to head comparison there but for about this week, we saw those 10x win of having the more widely laying Libra office brand. But if you call it something different people want is more brands are really important and I guess this is not news we know this problem well. Shoot someone question or do I mean we spent a lot of time and effort building the open office brand only to see used against us and and its users arguably. Trademark is really the traditional point of prioritization in floss projects and you can see now the open office brand is as you know half or two fifths of the Libra office one in terms of the Google trend. But you know this is this is a this is a big problem. And you know trademark some brands are you know peg that explains value so hey let's use the Libra office brand that's everybody use it it's all, you know it's 10 times more effective than anything else. This point you get extreme commoditization that none of these things are differentiated no one knows which one they should buy. And so in consequence, they buy the cheap one. So here we see a screenshot of the windows app store and we've got Libra office vanilla, the office powered by CIB and Libra office unofficial all at different prices all apparently Libra office. And this is another problem so so you know if differentiating products in the marketplace if if we have competing products and I would argue that this is a good thing. Is is it's not obvious how this can be done with commodity branding or everyone using the same brand. So, so let's look at some of the economics I talked about the being no money fairy. So we need somehow to get money. I talked about this I guess in my keynote, you know you get an angel investor you do some investment, and hopefully you build a cycle that grows strongly and allows us to invest in more development, create more free software and happy customers. If we don't, we get less development, and it all fails leads here being really the flow, the lifeblood of business, you know, how many people. Can you reach to turn into new customers. Of course you can kill yourself in other ways by having poor marketing poor sales strategy whatever but unless you get those those leads, you're really stuffed and at the moment, we have the Libra office project creating a powerful product brand and marketing it as gratis in large part. And it is, you know, it can't charge money for it in for various reasons, but creating this this very powerful product brands makes it very hard for the rest of the ecosystem to invest simply because where it competes with that. It's just very, very, very hard 10 times more difficult than you might think. And so this is true for desktop. For online of course, we previously had this firewall, where we kind of have a source project you could collaborate around the Libra office, and then you know competition and stress and agro in the marketplace. You know, it's the permeable membrane for investment and code. The new board of course change this, you know, once, once a number of conflicting things you know the investment obviously is wanted. It should of course be called Libra office it should come from TDF it should be entirely gratis. We don't want any moral persuasion to pretend, persuade people to buy. We should tell them they should donate to TDF and we want to, you know, if we can get leads we want to redirect them to diversify contribution. But again, we want corporate investment so so the connection between investment and return. If, of course, many of these desires conflict, lots of people don't share all of them, but all of these desires are well represented in the community and the board. So of course we, you know, we're a whole load of cool kids, but we disagree sometimes, and that's, I guess, normal. But one of the thoughts on that is that if you're discussing in the community and prominent voices are saying, you know, it's a great idea to nationalize the oil industry. We should do that. Let's nationalize it next week. This tends to have an impact on investment. People sell their shares in oil companies, they collapse in value. People who put their money in are worried as to whether they'll get their money back if this happens. They'll wonder what's what's next. Perhaps we should be selling other stocks in the country that's nationalizing. Of course, there's no problem with national oil industries. I have a beef against them. Well, maybe maybe there are some problems with central planning and lack of focus and, you know, nine to five jobs and so on. But either way, in theory, there's no problem with nationalized industries, but it's the transition there and it's the uncertainty. Of course, if you want to nationalize your oil industry, it's great to create that uncertainty first, because it's then much cheaper. You can destroy, you know, destroy the value of it and then you can buy it on the cheap, which is often how it goes if indeed anything's bought at all. And of course, there are problems here because we want to have an inclusive community. We want to discuss everything. But I think if you're in a position of authority and responsibility, it's helpful to approach these things with great sensitivity, given that your words have an impact that is perhaps long lasting and damaging and beyond, you know, beyond what you might imagine. We're talking large numbers of people's jobs and, you know, large economic flows. So it pays to be prudent. We came up with a marketing plan, perhaps to try and solve this with this community tags and so on and so on and lots of hard work there from Italo and the team. Significant resistance to the concept from the community from the wider free software world than elsewhere. And I talked about this before I think there's probably no point in rehashing this. I think, you know, the end of the day, even if we can solve this in TDF, which perhaps we should anyway, the board is then going to be, you know, deciding whom to send those leads to. Again, the leads of the lifeblood of a business are selling a product. And then, you know, we'll have all all of these potentially weak brands trying to differentiate, you know, if everybody is calling it Libra office if it's Libra office enterprise everywhere. It's not as profound a brand problem as the Libra office brand is used, you know, either as a 10x weapon for those who have contributed little against those who have, or just as a massive diluting factor if everyone uses it, such that it's then very hard to differentiate indeed, which ends up having a driving the price down to zero. Effectively it's like an app, you know, an app store, where there's lots of apparently identical products at different prices. So, you know, our solution, I guess it's this to, you know, to do something simple and pull it out into, you know, collaborate online and have clear brand message and get sorted out. Of course, there's lots of other other solutions to talk to. So just promote Libra office from TDF. This is what I love to hear. This is full of brilliant ideas for corporate investment in growing the Libra office brand I hear them regularly, all sorts of things that we, we can do as a company to grow Libra office as a brand. The problem is that there are very few convincing ideas on coupling any of that investment and work to any kind of return for the people putting investment in. The things that we're missing and the kryptonite that makes it all work. Here is one of the ideas that I've heard the love strategy. Good things will come just wait. You know, community members over the years will promote our solutions through Goodwill to their friends and companies and they will then pay something. That doesn't actually happen. You know, we're really grateful when that does happen. And you know, it is clearly the case that community members have sold things and encouraged people to buy stuff and that's fantastic. And it's good to put that money back into the project. But broadly, our community is a tiny percentage of users that see the software. You know, if you're in this conference you are an amazingly cool person, you know, you have actually understood the message if you've come and you've contributed and you're you know engaged with the project and so on and so on. And it's easy to forget that you are well if there are 200 million people and there's a thousand people in our community. You know, you are the point 00001% of all half percent of the world. And that's cool. But it does seem like putting the burden of promoting, you know the economic successively profits on your shoulders might be a bit of a misplaced idea. Like wouldn't it be better to just to tell more of those 99.999% that they might want to actually contribute effectively and here is a great and easy way to do it works. The solution I've heard recently is nationalization by TDF. So you turn TDF into a commercial development company, hire a large permanent staff of developers sell consultancy services support products. Wouldn't it be exciting as us as a community to go on the journey of managing, you know, a team of 40 engineers to do do something. Well, perhaps. There are a few problems there in addition to the charitable purpose of TDF, which is, yeah, well anyway. So community management ultimately comes down to some kind of board involvement voting elections conflict. We struggle at the moment as a board even to tend to the things that have already been agreed by the community suggestion ESC ranking board voting process. And central planning with a single price point, a single team is not necessarily as efficient as you might hope Missila has, has this problem. It makes it difficult to serve the whole world in different different places. Of course there's a bootstrapping problem currently the developers are in companies, primarily and not in TDF and TF has no not got the budget to pay them so we would potentially lose a lot of skills on the way. We permanently end any external investment. So we would, we would put all of our eggs in a single basket marked TDF. It's possible. I just don't know how wise that would be as an approach. I think if you look at Missila and Missila's monolithic approach to building its product and competing in the marketplace. I think you see the end result of exactly this model. Well, loosely coupled third party players why loosely coupled. Well, you know this could fill a niche like the PC app store. Lots of people looked at TDC for example and said whoa it's very loosely coupled I really worried about that we should own and control it. And that is when you only control it. A lot of those requirements around your mission and your nonprofit status get pushed across that ownership. A thing and ultimately selling apps in app stores and reinvesting the proceeds becomes, in my view, significantly more complicated. And there are problems there too because if we put gratis apps in app stores. We can potentially stop people getting updates from TDF. And our donation flow is highly coupled to the update, or at least has been. And then of course there are issues that if you create a privileged third party which owns this product brand Libre Office, does that chew up the whole ecosystem, you know, in a similar way. I hope none of these ideas are especially new I'll try and persuade you they're not in 2012 I gave a talk interaction anti patterns, talking essentially about the problems here. And here's what I said the economics the system a critical if we can't get the flow of code and finance right we fail. This is I guess shortly after losing some and the Oracle and IBM and freed riders need to join the community and enjoy the ride. So in 2013, the governance and economics he gives us you can see the slide here. Unfortunately, the needle in a gale are no longer with us and investing in the ecosystem and magenta is no longer with us either. Yeah, which which just shows you the consequences of not getting the economics right of your ecosystem or not as good as they could be 2014 the burn keynote the money fairy appeared I spent ages during that thing. And so this is not a new idea it's just an idea that I repeatedly talk about a conferences and results in remarkably little progress although there has been some progress let me show you that. So we never the Libre Office in business page which is great. And weirdly, if you give a very small donation to TDF to become an advisory board member of your 500 pounds you can appear or 500 euros you can appear on this page. Which is quite a strange incentive but either way, it's a positive thing to have Libre Office in business page and encourage people to go there and if you look at the stats from attorney for this year. This is actually a pretty cool so like this 61,000 hits on that page out of the 12 million that we got this is unique page views. The professional support page is got 17,000 and encouraging there's a good exit rate from that page like if you're looking at the people who go on to pick any kind of professional support or find out about it. Like most of the people hit that page, go somewhere useful. Yeah, of course, very few of the people who hit the Libre Office in business page go somewhere useful. But these are positive numbers. We had something like 0.15% in 2019.23% and a big jump to 0.65% of people. The go to our website actually find one of these pages like the certified developers page the professional support page of course then it's not clear the large number of them go on. But this is something to celebrate. Hopefully, hopefully we'll be pleased and here's what 0.65% looks like so this is the ratio of volunteers to companies in terms of commits in the project at the moment. And this is what it looks like. So it's pretty good in terms of you know growing share of the pie chart, arguably the blue share should more clearly match this chart, but but we're at least going somewhere, which is good. And the pace of going somewhere is accelerating it's just rather a small, small thing. And indeed on the website we've encouraged people to think less of a gratis free stuff. And now we're thinking that perhaps you ought to switch from open office which is, well, you know, a positive. One of the things I've been trying to persuade people is that we need a big grateful community here is an IRC discussion recently. And this is not just a problem for the marketing team we need to be thinking about this everywhere and telling people that things are good and I don't want to pick on these guys because they're both awesome. I'm sorry. I don't want to rename them to helpful and hero. But you know, don't, don't wait for the board. Don't, don't wait. Tell people tell people if something has gone well if someone's contributed something. Even if it's a company like alphanis who did an awesome job with the crash testing system, we might want to actually tell someone we want to celebrate it have a party, and maybe if we encourage them enough. Do more, or maybe someone else will do more. It's not really qualitatively different from a volunteer. I think we need to do more of that. My conclusions. Economics is important. Ultimately, I would argue we lost Oracle and IBM because there was no strong economic driver to keep them in the project it didn't make money. The Red Hat, of course, has reduced its investment. Suzeress, well, spun stuff out, the Gael and Eda I could go on. There's a great long list of them. People tend not to divest, particularly in small companies, if there is a strong economic driver. If we can get that, we will grow our community of contributors, and we will be more diverse, and we'll have fun. There's no area of contributors economic interest, just because someone is saying it should all be free and it's gratis it doesn't mean that they're a good guy. It could mean, maybe they're a good guy, but it could mean that they have an economic incentive to have a free complement to their service product, whatever, and they don't want people to know that perhaps they ought to be contributing financially to the core. Just be aware of that. So building a commercial product brand inside a nonprofit that can't exploit that money is, I think, an unfortunate marketing choice. I think we need to think more about how far down that product, product route we want to go, because we can't sell a product. We can only stop other people buying other products with that, because there's a value in telling people about a software freedom and getting more people to use it. I think we need to be careful. I think we need to build virtuous cycles. Those who contribute should be appreciated and promoted whoever they are. Those who strip line should not be. And it should be fun for companies to contribute to the project, as it should be for individuals. So that's my talk. I think I have one second left. If you have any questions, I'd love to take some. And hopefully someone saw the talk. Is there anyone listening still? Perhaps there's some. Yes. This is a really interesting conversation. And I was one of those people who kind of thought of, well, maybe it should be part of, you know, TDF as a whole and the Libre Office vanilla thing. But I think you kind of shown, you kind of threw to my face that there's a really good reason why there's a brand split and why, and why it makes sense to encourage multiple entities to invest and commercialize and then contribute back. And it reminded me very much of in the, in the years ago when the Red Hat Fedora brand split occurred for Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Fedora. And I wonder if maybe this is the lesson that we need to actually learn as a community. And I wonder, like, what, what your thoughts are on the idea of maybe codifying for TDF and Libre Office. Effectively a total brand split for commercialization purposes. Yeah, I think that's, I think that's helpful. So, you know, if, you know, I don't have a magic wand, I don't know what works. I can't predict the future any better than anyone else or they, you know, I have a little bit of experience of trying to sell something and paying people to do open source software. But it seems to me that across the free software world we have a problem encouraging people to pay for things. It's a very rampant problem. And I would argue that having a clear brand thing like the Libre Office personal or whatever it is that applies moral suasion not just in our project but in all projects I mean like Ubuntu personal versus Ubuntu Enterprise now this is weird because there's a single corporate entity that owns that brand. The Libre Office Enterprise is a good idea because it destroys differentiation by multiple players and ecosystem but I think the Libre Office personal is a good idea. I mean, you know, I think possibly we could go with unsupported or something. I mean, I don't know what it is. But, but I think a tag is a good idea to encourage people that actually contribution is important. And I think that's something that particularly in Libre Office with such a large user base and such a, you know, I'm a cool community. It's a large community, but it's a tiny fraction of that. We could really do do more to encourage. I think it's a pattern that lots of projects would win from. Thank you for your point in question. It's getting boring. 15% of my talk since 2014 have the same topic. I know, I know. Yes, Andreas makes a good point. I mean, I don't know how often you can say something and be ignored, but I'm going for a record in this. I don't think other people have different views and you know it's very difficult to affect any meaningful change in our project for lots of reasons. But hopefully we have an opportunity now on a bit of a wake up call to try and think these things through in a way that, you know, allows us to change. That would be my take. Let's see. Other questions, thoughts, feedback. How am I doing for time? I guess I'm probably out of it. So one last question, and this one might hit a little close to home. What do you think of the SUSE or open SUSE of brand split for this same kind of differentiation kind of purpose as you were talking about throughout your presentation. Yeah, absolutely. So I think it's a really good. So, so I think the SUSE cases is relatively different because LibreOffice really tries to be a vendor neutral nonprofit. And I think building a product brand that it owns for paid for product would be deeply unhelpful. But in the SUSE case, I think it's really, really cool. And of course open SUSE then allows people to be involved and SUSE was really open and has a cool community that does what it says on the tin is open. But then of course it pushes the SUSE brand too. So, so every time you talk about open SUSE, you talk about SUSE who do just fantastic work, you know, building infrastructure and tooling and, you know, contributing and making it possible for everyone to collaborate around that. So I think, you know, there are nuances there, but I think it's good to have that brand separation. And I expect to see it increasingly in things. I mean, so we see next cloud and next cloud enterprise now. And I guess we've had a similar separation. I think, you know, the, the kind of discussion we had at LibreOffice was not one about removing features. It was not about proprietary anything, you know, it was not about license change or any such thing. It was nearly about tagging the software to say it's not suitable for use in, well, many of those places where people have a complimentary, you know, service, they shouldn't be selling LibreOffice, unless they're actually contributing back, you know, and I think putting that message, embedding it in a product name is very, very, very helpful. A thing to do in my view. My litch may vary. So Michael, on time, Thurston's going to be up next and his talk starts in about nine minutes. Oh, nine minutes. We got some time for questions. If you want to introduce them, you're more welcome to do that. So Torstem is awesome. I, you know, like Torstem is just great. You listened to his talk and I gave a list of people that actually contribute back to the ecosystem and see ideas as well as that. I don't know what he's talking about. He's probably talking about why Calabra sucks, but either way you should listen to that too. There's probably something useful to find out there. But yeah, sure, happy to ramble until Torstem gets on. Any other questions or thoughts? I mean, I know it's an emotive topic. If you can hear me, one comment. So broadly behind the statements here and, you know, that I'm kind of in the same boat down and we all struggle to make a living out of open source. So I'm perfectly behind that, that part. What I find slightly unhelpful is kind of slamming other people for especially TTF in this case, for not acknowledging where the cope comes from, we're all making that mistake. I mean, we all always tend to market our own things that we did. And then that applies to all of us. And I really liked that you said, well actually with the running Linux on the servers and on our workstations and we're not paying anyone for that as well. And I think it's probably fair to say that that same story is there with acknowledging the past. And that's my statement from the chat that so much value was created by people before us. That slamming TTF for, and there was a, I mean, there was a decision that we all made back in the day and then 2011 to market a product because that's what open office most back in the day so we're marketed against open office. And then after that realize that there was no money ferry as you 2013 so so it actually evolved and I think that's the this does not looking back and not not really necessarily TTF is not this this amorphous entity I mean we're all a part of that and you're kind of at least partially involved with that decision making and instead looking forward and after 10 years saying okay. Damn it, I mean, all of open source land has the same problem and you got a monetize and in a positive way look forward, instead of looking back and blaming somebody else. But I think I think there are many suggestions that that come across that are the form let's get further this way let's, you know, I don't know which which it's particularly annoying, but hey I'll tweak my slides before publishing them if you have if you have a good tweak. I don't want to, you know, sort of get individuals or things around that but just to sort of paint the story of what's happened there and I think that helps inform future decisions. It was clearly a collective mistake in hindsight that marketed as free office speak back in the day. Yeah, sure. Yeah. So, but, but you say it's clear but but I don't know that. Yeah, it's a good summary. So I spoke it's actually local is going to be doing the closing. Oh, later is doing. Yes, I thought that was the case. Maybe we have to give my I mean Mike you're here do you I mean, you know, it's an easy message right free office suite is an easy one to get across right. We have been removing free I moved it from some things on Twitter we don't talk about it so much I mean the job of the document foundation is to promote this development of an office suite available for everybody. But I do agree that always talking about free free free kind of for many people stops the conversation or people don't even think about where does it come from a lot of people just assume it it does come out of thin air by magic or a few volunteers so we have been toning down the mentions of free. And we've been. Yeah, Michael showed the business in the office in business sites as well which only gets a tiny number of visits but we're looking at. And all we can do we're looking at the download page as well and segmenting users like we don't want to change what we offer, of course, if we want to offer this this office suite but really making sure that business users know at least know that there's there are things out there that they really should be installing and using if they're deploying on 10,000 computers and feeding something back as well so it's not finding that balance that we've talked about before between what we can do is to yet but also supporting the ecosystem I agree because without the ecosystem we wouldn't have half of the features we get so yeah. So, I've got. So, this seems to remind me a lot of, you know, I think about the other ecosystems that I'm involved in. And one of them that comes to mind is that, you know, the CNCF and Linux foundation with their model like, yeah, you can download it for free in the source code and binaries or whatever. But they kind of make the first pass landing page, take you to what they call certified platforms which you can pay for get the port for, and things like that. I've looked at the LibreOffice website recently and I don't really see an equivalent to that. Does anyone discuss the idea of doing something like that to like, maybe make it so that people can pass through easily to the LibreOffice or the LibreOffice or LibreOffice or LibreOffice by CIB or whatever. So it has been discussed, and there's a marketing plan that includes some of that as, you know, with an unclear, relatively unclear mechanism there for how that would work. But what was the model project that you were, what was the project that you suggested? You know, Kubernetes and the cloud native Linux foundation stuff, like they do this a lot where they people that sponsor active members, corporate wise that provide solutions based on the open source projects. When you go through to their site and go figure out like how to get Kubernetes, quote unquote, they kind of, they promote at the top level, the certified Kubernetes distribution. So I guess they have a source project with binary distributions from lots of different players, right? They also do the binary distribution themselves, but it is marked, it doesn't have the quote unquote certified Kubernetes kind of branding around it. No, it's interesting. So they effectively promote their own product as less authentic than the other ones elsewhere, right? Yeah, that's a very good way to describe it. Yeah, that's pretty good. Okay. Yeah, I've not not seen that approach, but certainly the problem that we have at the moment is the TDF builds are seen as the ultimate in authenticity and the genuine source of all sorts of goodness which is created by other people, which is a little bit. But I mean, if you correct that much of value. Well, as you said, there's no money fairy. There isn't. I hope we can agree on that if nothing else. Good. So any other questions or thoughts or well, and when is later on then when is his