 Thank you, everyone, for joining us. We know you had a lot of choices for publishing related sessions in this time slot, and so we appreciate you coming to ours. We're going to do some more thorough introductions in a minute, but just really quickly so you know who you're looking at. We have Melanie Schlosser, I'm the Community Facilitator for the Library Publishing Coalition, and the Scholarly Communications Program Leader at the Ejikopia Institute. Kate Cappi Mitchell from the California Digital Library, Charles Watsonsen from University of Michigan, and Joshua Nets-Fox from Wayne State. So this is what we called our presentation and what it says in the program. This is what we realized we should have called our presentation when we really started working on it. We're going to use this idea of sticky interdependence to talk about the development of a shared culture and shared infrastructure in the Library Publishing Sphere. Let's see. This is meant to be an actual panel discussion rather than a series of individual presentations. So I'm going to give some brief introductory remarks. We're going to give each of our panelists no more than five minutes to introduce themselves, their programs, and very briefly the platforms that each of them are developing. And then we're going to spend the rest of our time discussing a series of three questions. I'll say a little bit more about that in a minute. We will of course leave some time at the end for questions or for a wider discussion with you all. So to set the scene, I'm going to really quickly highlight four trends that I think provide some important context for this. None of this is going to be new, but I think it's all important to keep in mind as we're having this discussion. The first one is consolidation of research infrastructure by commercial publishers. Hopefully a bunch of you were in the session yesterday with our colleagues from UC San Diego. Allegra Swift, hi Allegra, did a really great job of laying out the problem in this space. So I'm sure it's not news to you that publishers have been buying up pieces of the research infrastructure to string together end-to-end solutions. And what we are talking about today is a portion of library's response to that, specifically in the library publishing space. I'm sure none of you would be here if you didn't believe that the challenges involved in creating, providing access to, and preserving digital content are bigger than any one library can tackle alone in a sustained way. One of the ways that libraries have dealt with this is the development of shared community-supported infrastructure. Obviously, there have been some challenges that have been highlighted in this recently. The deep-in announcement is one. But I still think, and we all share the belief that collaboratively supported shared infrastructure is still one of the most promising ways that libraries can push back against over-resourced commercial organizations that are able to purchase or develop giant platforms. This one, Academy Ownership. This isn't so much a separate trend as it is just a different lens of looking at these same issues. There is increasing interest in returning control of the scholarly communications enterprise to academic institutions. There've been some interesting recent examples. Last year, this event, there was a lot of talk about the 2.5% initiative. Last year's Library Publishing Forum pre-conference on open-source publishing platforms also made use of this lens. I'm helping to organize the first academic-led publishing day, which is a distributed digital event that's happening on February 7th. And I'm doing that mostly because I don't think that there's any kind of shared understanding in the space of what we're actually talking about when we say Academy Ownership, Scholar-led, of all of these different phrases. And I don't think we're gonna get anywhere until we get a better sense of what problem we're trying to solve and also how we're gonna do it. So I'm hoping that this conversation is part of a much bigger one about what does that actually look like and how can libraries advance that? At this point, I think library publishing isn't so much a trend as it is an established role for academic libraries. But I do think it's worth juxtaposing it with that last slide. I was tickled that Cliff Lynch included our session in his roadmap email, and I really love that he described library publishing as taking place under the radar. For the most part, the field is made up of practitioners who are just quietly getting things done on their campus, which I think is a strength, but it probably means that we have no one to blame but ourselves for the fact that when these discussions about Academy Ownership come up and taking control of the means of production of scholarship, library publishing is almost never mentioned, which is funny, because it's such an obvious fit in a lot of ways. So this session is in part an opportunity to explore what does that look like in a library publishing environment. And then really briefly about our sticky interdependence theme and the way we're gonna use that, we are gonna talk about, we're gonna discuss three different questions and three different ways that we see this coming up in the library publishing space, cultural alignment and integration. Actually, let me give you the longer one. So we're gonna talk about the development of a shared culture and values in the library publishing field, the alignment of library publishing efforts with partners both inside and outside of the library to move the needle in crucial areas, the development of a distributed but increasingly integrated infrastructure for scholarly publishing in libraries, and finally the challenge of sustaining collaborative efforts in this area. As first three, you're gonna get their own discussion topics, the fourth one, sustainability, we're gonna try to touch on that all the way through. If you don't feel that we've done so adequately, feel free to bring it up in the Q&A. Okay, with all that out of the way, we're gonna give each of our panelists a chance to introduce ourselves, our programs and our platforms. So first, Joshua. All right, so it looks like I'm first. I'm Joshua Netsbox. I'm at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. And I'm the coordinator for digital publishing in the libraries. I oversee our publishing efforts, our digital collections and our institutional repository in a small team of people. I also work closely alongside Dr. Sheryl Ball. Sheryl is one of the leads on the Vega project. Vega is an academic publishing system, primarily configured for web texts. Sheryl, with partner Andrew Morrison at the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, proposes project. It's a Mellon-funded and it comes out of her work in Kairos, which is the oldest extant scholarly journal publishing multimedia. It was the first to publish web texts online. And Sheryl's been the editor for something like 17 years at this point. And the pain points in that publishing process are the genesis for this project, that publishing multimodal scholarship that may have multiple moving parts and where the frame and structure of the actual web objects is part of the rhetorical argument being made that it proposes unique problems in the peer review and editorial process. And those problems require that the structures that undergird them be slightly different from the sort of out of the box scholarly publishing infrastructure that's available. And so Vega was designed with what I think are three chief advantages or unique points in mind. One is that the workflow, the editorial workflow of the system is entirely extensible and configurable. And so the stages of the editorial process from submission, you know, you would traditionally think of submission, peer review, copy editing, type setting and publication, those can be expanded or contracted, remixed, changed, new, entirely new structures dreamed of and the objects that go through peer review can move through those stages in a configurable manner. To the system takes advantage of affordances that make it relatively easy to integrate multimedia into the traditional web text or narrative. And so it's not difficult to do very simple multimodal web texts in Vega. And three, the system allows for forms of review that sort of go beyond the double blind. And so collaborative review, peer-to-peer review, open review, closed review, those are also available and configurable. And especially because in Kairos, Dr. Ball's experience was that the editing process is far more collaborative, that authoring structure for multimedia and the review structure are tied together in ways that allow authors, editors and reviewers to collaborate across the life of the project. Vega is built in JavaScript in Node with React front end and a MongoDB. And the front end and the back end are loosely coupled via API so that in theory, if you had a good understanding of the code underneath, you could build multiple heads on the back end of the project. And finally, I should say, point out that Vega's structure is such that as content is ingested into the system, native sort of cruft around it is stripped out and it's restructured so that the data itself is structured and saved as individual nodes so that those pieces are available to other parts of the system should you want to remix or reuse parts of the scholarship. It's in alpha at the moment at Wayne State and in heavy testing and we anticipate a beta launch sometime early to spring next year and... Do you want to go to the other side? Yeah, that's fine. So this is a shot detailing sort of some of the look of various items in stages of the editorial workflow in Vega and those items show up as dots so that you sort of know where your current list is in the process of editing. There's a frame for commenting on the right and the bottom is series or journal-like structures that can be displayed on the front end. I would be remiss if I did not say that this project started at West Virginia University and has only recently moved to Wayne State and so credit or accredited? I think I've said it before. Okay, thanks. I think I'll be saying some of the things that Joshua said. My name is Catherine Mitchell and I'm the director of publishing and special collections at the California Digital Library at the University of California. I'm here to talk about Editoria which is also a melon funded project. This project I worked closely with Eric Van Rijn from UC Press, he and I are co-PIs on this project and the sort of impetus for it was the crisis in the humanities with the monograph and its questionable sustainability. And so one of the things that we wanted to do was try to build books better so that they were more efficiently created so that they were less expensively created and so that they were better tuned so that the process of making them was better tuned to a digital first distribution model and also, but not exclusively, open access. That's like, oh, should I do it? Okay, great. Oops, that doesn't know I'm too far. Okay, these are old slides. All right, I want you to know that I have revised these slides. They are not currently in their revised state and I revised them because I realized that I was leading initially with what is Editoria instead of leading with the problem I felt that Cliff Lynch had chastened us enough at the beginning that I should fix that. So now I'm owning up to my mistake and proceeding. So what does Editoria do to make books better? Well, basically there are a couple of things that it does one of which is to provide library publishers with the capacity to make books. I think that in many cases those of us who are working in library publishing feel pretty confident about our journal production systems. We're running journals. We have multiple options for running journals and there's a long history of us hosting journals and supporting journals within our institution and beyond. One of the things that we have not been able to do at CDL and I think there are probably others in the room who face some of the same challenges is provide a similarly robust mechanism for making books. But that is not to say that we don't have a reason to do that because in fact we have found at the University of California on the 10 campuses that there are a great many academic units who are actually producing book series and they aren't doing it with publishers, they're doing it themselves and they're doing it in very awkward and unwieldy ways and they would love to have more infrastructure to support that work. And so that was what drove us as the library to be very keen to work on this project. Eric came at it from a different perspective as an academic press looking for a way to refine a process that they were already very good at but that felt as if it were mired in some systems that were outdated and no longer well suited to the ways in which they wanted to distribute books including open access book programs. So what this offers is basically a consolidation of systems for those entities that have already been publishing books and a way to produce books for those of us who are eager to move into that space and support our institutions in that way and our faculty. It also helps to migrate away from desktop software. There are a lot of examples of people making books in Word trying to create a PDF but before they do that passing the manuscript around to any number of people losing track of the version, putting extra junk in the code and then really struggling to get something that's print ready. So the idea was to move out of all of those desktop solutions into a single web enabled environment. And finally to create digital workflows that were actually that would enable in much the way that Josh was describing would enable multiple folks, the author, the editor, the peer reviewer to work in a system simultaneously as appropriate. Okay, back to what it is. So editorial is an open source browser based digital book production system and what it does is it provides workflow management tools so that people can basically either if they're feeling ambitious, author in the system or present us with more typically a Word document that we can then ingest, convert to HTML and then make available for all of the design and editorial work that happens within the system. It has browser based editing. So again, there isn't the problem of versioning. Everybody knows what they're working on and where it is and it's development. And what we're outputting is basically an EPUB, a PDF. Anything you might need can come out of the same work. So it's a single workflow with multiple outputs. And it should be easy to implement. It's really been designed from the perspective of book production editors at UC Press, which is interesting because they are a team, they know what they do and instead of just sort of replicating what they were using before, they sort of broke it down. We worked with Coco, the Coco Foundation, this amazing technology partner that doesn't just build things but actually thinks about how people do things and asks them to rethink how they're doing things and what would be the easiest path somewhere. So it's designed to be very intuitive in that way. And it's currently in beta. I think that one of the interesting things for us is that it's having been designed by academic press production editors, it's very much aligned with how they work. The library press or the library publishing scenario is a bit different. So we're finding that we have some additional requirements that they may not. So that's where we are with that. And then finally, well, we have, the interesting thing about the technology here, and I will get to it later because I feel like I'm running over, is that this is really modular and it isn't a single system. It is the sort of conglomeration of a lot of open source efforts that are out there in addition to the PubSuite technology, which is JavaScript based and customizable. So we're really trying to convene a community of open source effort here rather than building something de novo. And then finally, we have some partners and folks are signing on, they're in the system, they're testing it, they're using it, they're writing requests for features and it's already, we've had our first meeting, it's a really lively bunch, people are very excited about it. One of our partners is Fulcrum. On to Charles. So I'm Charles Watkins and I'm Associate University Librarian at Publishing and you should have thought I'd work out how to operate, oh, I get the point there again. So Associate University Librarian Publishing at University of Michigan and Director of University of Michigan Press. And my portfolio as it were is University of Michigan Press, Michigan Publishing Services, which is a library publisher and deep blue art institutional repository. And I'm gonna talk about Fulcrum briefly. So Fulcrum is also supported by the NUWM Foundation. Fulcrum has very little behind the scenes in terms of workflow tools. It's not an offering platform, it's not a production platform. It has a particular focus and that is on the durability and preservation of book-length materials. So what it consists of is it consists of a reading layer which reads EPUB files and underneath a repository layer that preserves associated assets and those assets are delivered through the reader layer. So it's a response to a pattern that we've seen with humanities authors, which is that they are true digital scholars now. They are collecting a lot of material during their research and at the point of publication, they are wanting to deliver that material with their narrative. So this is a way of supporting the production of enhanced e-books and interactive scholarly works and doing it in a way that is built on top of a repository layer that is in the San Vera Fedora framework is actually on the same stack as our research data repository, University of Michigan. So really getting back to the point that Cliff Lynch raised in his opening remarks that this issue of posterity, of durability is a major block to scholars who want to move into the digital space with their book-length projects. So Fulcrum is really addressing that particular issue. It's a host of platforms. It has behind the scenes a number of services that we're offering to other publishers and it does integrate with authoring and workflow tools. So in fact, we're working both with Vega and with Editoria to provide a content workflow. So at this stage we have over 6,500 books on Fulcrum and there are mainly in two collections. One is the ACLS Humanities e-book collection and that's a backlist collection of about 5,000 books and the other one is the University of Michigan press e-book collection which launches in January which launches with about 1,100 books and then we're also hosting some publications for other publishers like the level press and also working with some other university presses. So this is just an example of an enhanced e-book on Fulcrum. So this is relatively simple. It's an e-pub with embedded video but at the same time we are moving towards much more complex interactive scholarly works. This is an archeological report which delivers a 3D model associated data and narrative in the same environment. It's all in the e-pub-3 environment but you can truly interact with this work. And this is just lastly to say, to repeat the concept of I think this feeds into other themes in this presentation which is the idea of integration. So the way in which these projects really can fit together for one publisher's workflow. So this is our aspirational but getting there workflow for University of Michigan press and you can see that as Joshua has said, we feel that we can use some of the back ends of Vega to manage management and peer review coming into an editorial workflow where we can manage the production process. So we're delivering through Fulcrum and then offering our content through some other programs like SimplyE, for example, for a reader who is trying to get stuff from multiple platforms including Fulcrum and also Rebus which is another mental foundation supported reading platform. But also just to make the point that we're all about standards, we're all about integration, we're all about making digital humanities type projects discoverable and preservable by asking for a certain amount of constraint from the faculty who are writing and constructing those. So it's a bargain. We'll preserve, we'll make your work discoverable if you follow some of our workflows and containers. I'm not gonna introduce another platform to you. That's it, but I do wanna give you some quick background in the Library Publishing Coalition for those of you who aren't familiar with it because it's kind of an important framework around some of the things we're gonna discuss. LPC is a community-driven membership association of libraries involved in publishing. It's hosted by the Educopia Institute that provides both administrative support and also community facilitation. We released our first strategic plan this year and as you do, as part of that process, we revisited our vision, mission and values and I'm sharing this with you mostly because I think our new vision statement is lovely and I try to get as much mileage out of it as possible. Our vision is a scholarly publishing landscape that is open, inclusive and sustainable. So obviously we're aiming high, but I do think it's a good articulation of the values of a lot of library publishers and the libraries that they're a part of. And here are just some basic facts about LPC and some highlights for annual activities. We have about 82 member libraries, a number of strategic affiliates of which CNI is one. Our annual conference library publishing forum, there's some postcards around, please take one. It's coming up in May in Vancouver. We also have a really active set of committees and task forces that do amazing work and we're involved in grant funded research projects like the IMLS project that created the library publishing curriculum. Check out librarypublishing.org for lots, lots more information. So with that, we're gonna move on to our panel discussion. So, hang on, apologies in advance for the overly long and pedantic nature of these questions. There are really more discussion problems. So, first one, one of the reasons for the creation of the LPC in the first place was the need to develop a community of practice around library publishing, which until then was mostly individual libraries working in isolation. Five years in, that community has grown in ways that I think would have been hard to predict in 2013. And one of them has been a strong and growing focus on developing a set of shared values and ethics for the field. So for our three panelists, how have you seen or participated in that and what impact do you feel it's having both on library publishers and on the broader environment? I could start. So I was intimately involved in the early discussions and then the development that led to the ethical framework for library publishing that came out of the library publishing coalition, published earlier this year, is that right? And it grew out of discussions at the forum two years ago where we sort of recognized the imperative to interrogate our own ethics as a group. If we really are a community, then what are our values, I think I'm restating your premise in this question. And I think that that focus and the document that's come out of it, which is intended to be a living document revisited and revised as our understanding of our responsibilities and our ethics grow. That is beginning to have impact. We've seen it used in discussions. So for instance, in the Humeitrix project, that document was apparently highly relevant to the guiding of those discussions. And I also think it helps inform this sense that we have responsibilities in the projects that we undertake, the software that we create, the infrastructures that we develop that might be informed by more than simply publishing imperatives. That it's good to interrogate what our values are as libraries and publishers so that some of that can go into the development of the work that we're doing. So not to belabor this, but in the case of Vega, can we acknowledge that questions of new peer review processes or open peer review processes help to push against the kind of gatekeeper function that closed or traditional peer review might serve against values of inclusion or diversity. And thinking about that on the front end makes certain that on the back end, you don't find yourself in a situation where you are sort of locked into a technology that runs counter to values that you wish you could support. I mean, I didn't think one of the importance of this work by the library publishing coalition can really be overstated. It's incredibly relevant for university presses as well as library publishers. And the idea that we are mission related publishers, that we are different in something that is a very meaningful way from commercial publishers, it's really, it's a rebirth. And it's incredibly important for me, it's also incredibly important for our systems. It's been very, very influential working with the level press group as well to sort of hear these values reinforced and reinforced. And also working within the library context, this is the environment that we're working and helps us connect with other partners within our own libraries as well. From a full-prong point of view, full-prong has four design principles that are values based design principles. So one of those, for example, is accessibility. And just what happens if you view what you're doing truly through an accessibility lens goes far beyond a community of partially sighted readers. For example, it goes right to the heart of how we think about digital and the digital affordances and open access and including equity and diversity and so on. So it's just these frames of values-based frames really help us to put blue water between where we sit and where a commercial competitor sits and are extraordinarily helpful. I would just add that a lot of this work and a lot of this thinking has come out of what are effectively community meetings at the library publishing forum. And the first meeting that gave rise to the ethical framework for library publishing was a meeting in which we were grappling with an environment that suddenly wasn't so much fact-based and thinking about what we could do as a community to sort of make our ethics known, to make sure that voices that seemed more silenced than they had been before would be heard and that perspectives that were being explicitly rejected would have a space. And so that was a very, I think, a very emotional meeting for the group and there was a lot of talk. The next year we convened around the topic of Elsevier's purchase of B-Press. And again, there were real ethical quandaries there. B-Press works for me, I like it. It does what I need it to do. It's owned by a company that I believed I was offering alternative to by using B-Press. And so how do we reconcile those things as a community and having the space to sort of grapple with that and think about what it means for our ethical obligation to each other? Do we allow NDAs with vendors? How do we work to protect privacy and data when we engage with vendors? Can we as a community come up with standards for contractual relationships that will protect people? And then of course the Academy-supported community-led open infrastructure that we are all sort of working in and that we want to see more and more of. How can it position itself in a way to make sure that there are alternatives to the kinds of gatekeeping that aren't just about quality but are about certain kinds of voices and not hearing others? I think one point which is, I'm using commercial as a short-term, non-commercial versus commercial. I think it's really, really important to not suggest that certain publishers by an accident at the tax code are essentially categorized as commercial but are in fact as mission-driven as those of us who are fortunate enough to be nonprofit status are. And that's also true of many of the vendors in our community that this is not a divide and it's an encouragement to embrace an idea of mission-driven and values-based that goes far beyond that division. Before we move on, any thoughts on how the development of a shared culture and values might impact sustainability of these efforts in the long run? Yeah, well one thing that comes to mind again is this idea that these infrastructure platform presumably they are of benefit to the whole community. They don't accrue to simply one player institution. And if that's true then they are of benefit to small practitioners who just don't, like Catherine says, don't have the infrastructure to do books but suddenly could perhaps find themselves with that infrastructure. And if the community that gives rise to these projects does not have a shared understanding of values or is not approaching these projects from a frame of a particular ethic, then those small players find themselves again at the mercy of whatever the ethic is that gets baked into the project. We all understand a rising sense that the algorithm can be biased. The software can be ethically compromised if it's not developed from an ethical framework. And so it is important that as a community we understand what our values are so that those values can inform our development work so that that development does not then turn back and betray the people who use it. So moving on to our alignment theme. As we were talking about what we wanted to do with this session, all of you shared a number of examples of ways that library publishers are taking part in larger efforts or are forming partnerships with organizations in different sectors or otherwise aligning their work with others to have a bigger impact. Can you talk about where you're seeing that and maybe about where you'd like to see more of it in the future? I'll jump in here. Well, first of all, we're aligning ourselves very closely at CDL with our university press and that's something that we have had, we've tried to do in fits and starts over the years but we are now going to be on the same technology platform for book production which is something new and it enables us to imagine an increasing level of sticky interdependence and opportunity where we could be involved in some kind of a continuum of book publishing where it's easier to hand a project off or to sort of imagine it sort of evolving toward another life with another sponsor in effect and so that's exciting and it's nice to see us converging but also recognizing where we have a shared interest and where our needs diverge. I would say that for us working with the Cocoa Foundation has been a really important step away from library based technology and one of the things that we've done historically at CDL is build our own and when we have participated in open source projects they have tended to be library driven and this is a technology partner who has more of a sort of grounding in the publishing world, specifically work on PLOS infrastructure and a long history with companies like Highwire et cetera, the principles of the foundation and so for us this is really an important move toward a kind of a technology expertise in an area that is not the focus of the library and has been immensely helpful. It's been really interesting to work with different communities of libraries. The library publishing coalition is one community, the level press group is another community and has middle group 54 supporting institutions. A very interesting community that we've really had the chance to work with more and more is Lyrasys and that's been a fascinating experience. Lyrasys pivoting to become this incubating entity, this introducer connector and working with the members of the 1000 plus libraries, museums, galleries that are archives that are associated with Lyrasys has really given us a fascinating opportunity to test our ideas and our technologies in a variety of different contexts. So that's been a really fascinating community and a very promising and pivotal partner in our work on sustainability I think. So I don't want to leave into integration here too much. But this interdependence among infrastructures where we come together with other institutions that are developing a cadmium infrastructure, open infrastructure to leverage the best points of each of those systems to come together to be something a little greater. I don't know if folks have read the meta-archive statement on the deepened sunset today. But they made the point that the work that was done to set policy and governance of the community was far more benefit really than the work that was done on the network or system itself. And that that work allows for healthy and sustainable community. And so this sort of interdependence among a network of institutions who recognize the value in each other's projects and who work for each other's best interests. We would like to see fulcrum and editorial succeed and be sustainable and do fairly well because that's good for us and good for them. That there's a win-win feeling about it. And that those infrastructures, we need to be cognizant that the community development is as important as the infrastructure development so that we have a sustainable future. Sustainable as was defined in the Athenaeum 21 presentation as having a sense of continuity of access as opposed to simply being sort of persisting in a state. That was clear, that's my thought on that. Yeah, and that is a great segue into the last question prompt here, which is that I think one of the things that has been at times frustrating for the library publishing field is that there are so many new platforms in development in addition to the great platforms that we already have, like PKP's software. So understanding what's out there, choosing which one is right for you has been a challenge. So it's been exciting to see the kinds of integration work that you all are doing. And I know you've talked a little bit about it, you wanna tell us a little bit more about the ways that you're building links between systems or sort of coordinating between them. So one of the really interesting sort of communities that has been introduced by working together on software has been the Michigan Digital Publishing X group, MDPX. So on Thursday, Joshua, I, and Kathleen Fitzpatrick will all be at Michigan State University. So we go from university to university to eat each other's food and have been since, which is really quite good, and have been since last year. And the way we started doing this was thinking about interoperability between our different systems. And that's been a very interesting experience because we've had to have those meals together and we've actually had to have people in the room who really think about culture as well as software to establish a layer of trust and a layer of openness to really thinking about our shortfalls as well as our strengths. So that's just been a really interesting experience in terms of what this kind of collaboration, working together in the community might actually feel like, which is not just about technology. And I'm looking forward to the food that we provide. Yeah, well, I think I might focus on editorial itself as a thing because it is very much built with the notion that it would plug into any number of front-ends. Obviously, you saw before on the workflow that Charles shared that it can be a production system that would drive, you know, content into full Chrome. It could also sit behind any IR platform or a publishing platform. It isn't meant to be a solution unto itself. It's meant to be a cog in a machine. And so it is very much dependent on and eager for the success of the other pieces. I mentioned briefly when I was describing it that it's not built in a single code environment. I mean, there is the PubSuite code and that is an important piece of it, but it adheres very closely to this ethos of sharing around open source projects. And so, you know, a lot of what happens, the ingest engine, some of the formatting and the typesetting is happening in systems that were not built by the Coco folks and but play well with their technology. And so I think that that is an important form of integration in the very conception of a project. Is it something that you need to build from soup to nuts or is it something that can draw on some of the successes and the resources that are already out in the community? And that has been both exciting and terrifying, of course, because then you don't control everything and that's one of the perils of this kind of model, but you have so much more in terms of possibility. You have resources, you have excitement, enthusiasm and vision coming from any number of places and it doesn't all reside with a single shop. So that's been a very positive experience. I stole the MTBX. No, no, that's good. I'm glad you did. I think the MTBX stands for collaboration. Is it exciting development? And I, yeah, I've got a little piece in there. Yes, I thought it was exchange. Maybe it's exchange. Okay. I'll change the name of that. Stanford's on there. I think it's an exciting development. Partly because it opens us up to each other in, I think, in ways that maybe weren't possible before. And it allows us to think, as I said before about it, our partner's best good, you know, which is there's something there. And I'm especially interested in the future of that because there are lots of, let's think in my own frame in Michigan, there's lots of institutions in Michigan that are tiny. You know, there's, or smaller, there's Grand Valley and Northern Michigan and Central Michigan and even smaller colleges. And some of my colleagues there will, you know, sort of very frankly say to me, that's good for the R1s, but what about us small library publishers who just don't have a, we can't download your massive software and install it. And so the more we begin collaborating together on these kinds of projects, the wider the door may be for those institutions that don't have that kind of underpinning. And the more we will have changed our own approach to each other such that we might be able to welcome them into what we're doing. And I really look forward to that. I think that that's maybe one of the true positive outcomes. If this truly is a change of culture and integration and accessibility, that it would be an inclusive one for sort of all of our institutional brethren, brothers and sisters across the landscape. I think that's where a partner like the RSS could also be an interesting piece because just because it's an open source platform doesn't mean that it has to be run locally. Some of us want to do that. Others of us would like to just have somebody, you know, make it available to us and we pay them a fee and license fee and we use it. And I think that, you know, recognizing that open source is not a place, running open source, contributing code to open source is not a place where everyone can engage comfortably, has the resources to do that, but that doesn't mean that they don't support it in some form is a really important step forward for our community. And having sustainable service providers and many of them is also really, really important. I do want to say that I think the fact there is a, you know, we, our institution reeled a little bit from the B-Press acquisition for all the reasons that you are aware of, that it felt like a trail and seems like an enclosure from the commercial space of a player that we thought was in our, in our midhouse. And so there is a, there's also a sense that these developments happening at academic institutions and staying there to the extent that, that there's a foundation there may be a hedge against this enclosure, this idea of enclosure that we're playing with each other, you know, in this space. I don't know, there's a, there's a, it's kind of that axiom that you don't do the same thing over and over and expect different results. If we can, if we can begin to change the way that we collaborate together, then, then perhaps hosting becomes safe again. So they, not. I want to make sure to leave time for questions. So I think we'll wrap up our preparatory remarks here. Thank you very much, panelists.