 I want to start with a little bit of a personal story here. I grew up in the European open source community, but I live in the US now. I grew up in Europe, deeply rooted in European values, and I really grew up with the American dream. Probably the only way that got me on the other side of the pond in the heart of the Silicon Valley, unsurprisingly, was love. And I'm now happily married for 10 years with an American, I guess. I picked my battles. And whilst it's certainly exciting as a technologist to be in the Bay Area, it hasn't really changed my perspective on what effectively is what I would call a very high risk, high reward social system. One hand is true that if you're an ambitious technologist, if you stay healthy, and candidly, if you happen to be of particular ethnicity and gender, you get access to a network of ideas, capital. There is certainly more likely to achieve success, wealth. And since there's been a lot of talk on capacity building talent this morning, let me say it out loud. I think the private sector in the US invests in young talent in a way that I've never seen before. Certainly not in my home country. I moved out of Italy to Holland very quickly, and there was certainly a big improvement from in terms of my investment in my talent. And I've seen the next level in the US. But those who know me know I'm a special needs dad of a six-year-old. And so I quickly had to learn in the US to deal with the cracks of a system that has little to no social safety net and really forces me to confront what is the actual cost, human cost, societal cost, environmental cost of this space of innovation. And so I guess that's what made me double down on open source, investing probably my best and most rewarding career years, not just in open source, but in the magical world of open source foundations. Non-profit in the Silicon Valley, sounds like a Noxie modern, but. And look, it's not just my conscience that keeps me magnetized to open source, but I think it's the fundamental role of foundations, the role that they play in the open source ecosystem. Mike mentioned before the concept of open governance. And I agree with him wholeheartedly, we didn't do a good job to explain what open governance is above and beyond our open source, which clearly we're all very familiar with at this point. I mean, effectively it's a layer that allows individuals, corporates, and hopefully increasingly public sector to collaborate on open source projects in a selfishly altruistic way. They drive their own interests, but they, through what I think it's an amazing positive sum gain, they produce value for the world. While it's pretty clear to our open source insiders, maybe let me put it in context for you with some numbers, hopefully explain what that is. When people think about the Linux Foundation, they think about probably Linux as the most famous project that we have. 85% of smartphones are based on Android, it's based on Linux kernel, over 96% of the top one million web servers run Linux, 90% of cloud instances run Linux. Linux is on Mars. But the creator and maintainer of Linux, Linux Storeworlds, has been on the Linux Foundation payroll for over 20 years. It's never worked for a corporate. And I don't think people realize that how important the independence of, in this case a single, so important maintainer, is due to foundations. And sort of we wouldn't be here, I think, talking and thinking about what amazing commoditized digital public Linux is. But talking about funding, over the years foundations have raised literally billions of corporate funding that was previously invested in close source proprietary solutions. And so it's undeniable to me that if open source is eating software, it's also because of the other foundations played creating this sort of fertile ground for corporate investment. You know, the other point here is, you know, we have thousands of members that support us monetarily, but none of them count for more than 3% of our contribution. That creates an amazing independence while a massive collective power and impact. But beyond monetary contributions, I think this is probably the most staggering number here. You know, there's been talks about how developers, not all developers are paid to work on open source and I think there's so much more to go. But if you think about the hundreds of projects that we hosted at the Linux Foundation, last year we had about 650,000 developers contributing code, even with a conservative estimate of $40,000 yearly salary, that amounts for $26 billion. I'll let that sink for a second. Microsoft budget in tech for comparison is $24 billion. So, you know, this is enormous potential for collective innovation and one that, again, creates innovation that is accessible for everyone. Which sort of brings me to Europe. Hopefully I'm not too late. Keep going until they kick me out. Good. It brings me to Europe and honestly to the reason why when I was asked to run Linux on the Asian Europe, I jumped at the opportunity not just as a personal opportunity, but really for the opportunity that is for Europe and for the world. And the opportunity is not just open source per se. It's not open source for open source sake. It's what Europe can drive through open source on a global scale. And spoiler alert, I don't think it's about building a European big tech. Economic development is part of it. I've assumed everyone here is familiar with the 2021 study that Open Forum Europe participate to. That said, that open source contributes to 65 to 95 billion of European GDP. Sure, it's about digital sovereignty, you know. Undeniably open source when it's done right. Openly govern, global. And I would say importantly paired with a lively commercial ecosystem is a unique tool to achieve digital independence. And as we've seen from the numbers before provides a chance to compete to the global stage with established big tech players. One of the projects under Linux on the Asian Europe is Project Silver. It's building, it's the largest European telcos building a open source telco cloud. I think that's a really good blueprint of how European excellence verticals can join forces and build and critically sustain the fabric of sovereign digital commons. But I think it's really more than that. And it comes down to three things. It's a very concrete mechanism to bring European leadership and values to the global stage. Sure, I think the Brussels effect has worked to a certain extent, but I think we can all admit is costly, quite inefficient, and oftentimes turns into a cat and mouse game that gets resolved into courts. And I would argue it hasn't yet reversed some of the key technology dynamics and social dynamics that it was set out to. My personal experience with Finos, FinTech Open Source Foundation, you brought the biggest banks of the world in Europe and the US collaborating on Open Source. Spoiler alert, it's possible. After they got familiar to work with each other, the first thing that they asked was to collaborate with regulators to mutualize the cost of interpretation and implementation of regulation. And so I think that is truly an important blueprint. We can bring together the regulators and the regulated entities, not just on a piece of paper or a standard, but on code, and I think that's much more efficient and potentially if sustained by a commercial open source ecosystem, very pervasive. I'm very hopeful that one of the other projects of the Linux Foundation, the Open Wallet Foundation, is really bringing together a public sector in the Government Advisory Council with some of the largest tech players, Google, Microsoft. Into building an open source wallet that is compatible with Ida's too, and that it's supposedly gonna bring back the control of your identity and your credentials in the hand of the users, which shouldn't be monetizing on personal information. Which brings me to my second point. Open Source has, when it's openly governed, and there's been a lot of talk this morning about it, the potential to democratize technology and shift undesirable market dynamics for good. This is especially true when a critical mass of players collaborate again under an open governance. Many of you might be familiar, I hope you do, with a paper that made a big strides in the open source community last year. It was a leaked memo from a Google employee. We refer to it as we have no moat. It basically was an internal employee advising Google executives that, you know, at the pace that open source AI was innovating, neither Google nor open AI will have a moat. And, you know, I think we have seen over the last six months companies like Mistral or Huggingface really becoming massive players in the space, but simply, again, the quality and the development of the models that are out there, open source has just been staggering. And finally, you know, maybe most importantly, there's been a lot of speakers that talk about it this morning, open source, when you pair it with sort of the trust model that I think is fundamental, Foundations like Apache Eclipse, Linux Foundation have provided, is gonna be the only way that we can harness this collective power to address some of the most sort of pressing challenges in the world. Climate change, they've been talking about the SDGs all morning, I think about Foundation a little bit like as a force field, where we're able to align drivers and creating the trust that, again, brings individuals, contributors and the public sector together towards a common goal. I think that's especially important when you pair that with the fact that, you know, the new generations are very conscious about what's happening in the world and the worry for the future. And crucially, they are more and more tech savvy. So I think as we all become developers, there's gonna be a huge role to play in aligning, again, corporate individual and the public sector, if you really want to have a vital chance to address these issues. Now you might be wondering, how do we get there? I'm sure if I had another five hours we'd probably figure it out. And I think actually, kidding aside, the rest of the program, I think will spark very important ideas on the role of open source stewards. You know, first time being recognized by a law in the U, as well as the investment in open source, which I think are two critical aspects. But from where I sit, I would love to see policymakers, first and foremost, have older vision of open source. We have to go beyond adoption and sort of the vision of reuse of open source and just one off funding in form of grants. I mean, don't get me wrong. Public sector investment in open source is great, but the most successful open source projects out there thrived in the long term with corporate sustainability, corporate investment. And that means basically that when you envision and invest in an open source project, you have to leave room for market creation, for an ecosystem, for commercial ecosystem that can sustain the project in the long run. And that's where we are here to help. And then finally, as I clearly am going over time, I think it's truly important to keep open source collaboration global. When we think about digital sovereignty, it's very easy to fall in the trap of creating European specific initiatives. And some of the previous speakers suggested that. I couldn't agree more. Balkanization of open source is not what we need to do. It's a major disservice to the open source community, which we used to collaborate globally, but also risks hampering sort of the potential to solve challenges that are effectively global. I'm gonna leave my comments on the CRA. I think we all learned a lot in the last year and I think there's something really true in terms of our, ah, this open source community is better working together to interact with the policymakers. But just to close, as we build to European elections this year, my hope is that we'll see open source, not just as a poster child for digital sovereignty, but really as a mean to achieve higher order goals that no single entity can address. And I think Europe is uniquely positioned to address that. Thank you.