 So I want to talk about today about Poplis, which is the Civic Hacker Federation. I had the opportunity about six years ago to start NGO in the civic technology space. We're a civic technology organization basically because we develop all sorts of apps for specific purposes from using free information laws, visualizing performance of government, identifying potential cases of corruption, and so on. In the neighborhood, of course, you know several civic technology organizations, like the ones up here, some of which are in the States. And also there's a rising trend of citizens getting organized to develop technology for transparency of other sorts of civic purposes, such as stated here in the study from Global Voices. Now, every night we're being haunted, though, in spite of this good news, we've seen a rise of civic technology efforts by this ghost of impact. Now, what is your impact? It's not just funders asking, like, where is my money going to? It's also ourselves asking, you know, all our effort. Is it really achieving the impact we want in the social space? And our answer to the question of impact when it comes to civic technology has been pretty much like this, which is not a straightforward answer. And that is because it's difficult to develop civic technology from a technical perspective, software is difficult, especially when it comes to software that aims to address a policy problem that is even more difficult. It's very expensive to develop software and especially for civil society organizations that like budget, which also has led to a little margin of innovation when it comes to civic technology. We're seeing the same websites being developed all over again, rewriting the code all over again. So to address these problems, we organized a conference last April where we called 40 of the leading civic tech NGOs across the world. We met in Santiago, and about 30 of those 40 actually showed up, so we had a big representation there. And what we agreed on was this idea of sharing. We need much more sharing on the civic tech space. Sharing stories about what does it take to achieve impact in getting free information laws passed, or lobbying regulation passed, or FY requests passed increasingly, and why didn't work with the same tools in Chile, for example. But it also requires much more sharing of technology. Now, the problem is that so forth, our sharing of tech has been this. You know, there's my code, it's up there, you know, help yourself in my GitHub repo. And we have found that when it comes to civic tech, this is just not enough, and that's why we agree on this strategy that's called the POPLUS components. Imagine this is your website, and your website of course has different functions, like a parliament monitoring website has functions about information about people, to find information about the bills that are being discussed, and so forth. For POPLUS, we understand that each of these functions is a standalone website. Technically speaking, each of these standalone components are rest APIs that organize structure and search data for very specific purposes, like structuring information about people, or maps, or documents, for example. If you develop a website from this rest API approach, component approach, it's going to be incredibly expensive. Though marginally the cost will decrease, it's going to be expensive at first. So what if we approach this from a community perspective, where different countries, different NGOs across the world are contributing, developing each piece of component as a rest API, and in the end get interoperability or Lego pieces in the end for civic technology. This is not just theory. So far, in less than a year, we have developed about five or six of these components. Here are three of them. That component of theirs stores data about people, the other one about documents, which serves for bill legislation, for example, and the other one about email exchange and duration being visualized through again these rest APIs. This is a parliament monitoring website we developed about three months ago, which cost us six times less than our previous effort by using the component strategy. And it's pulling in components developed by ourselves in TDA, but also components from the UK, South Africa, and others for information about congressmen, the bills are being discussed, pickup documents, email exchange and duration being visualized, and so forth. Now the great thing is that we're not only the ones using it, the rest of the community is using exactly the same components, and those three components that I showed you are being pulled in for civic tech websites in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Kenya, Morocco, the UK, just to give some examples. So this is our approach. The challenge we're discussing here is how can we move beyond open source when it comes to civic technology development. This is an approach. It's yet to be seen what's going to be the impact. So ideas absolutely welcome. Thank you.