 cases where we find sustainability, issues, challenges, solutions. What are your questions when you hear this? Some questions must arise. Peter. I want to thank you very much for the first presentation, but in my opinion you have to put weights in the formula, then it will work better. Thanks. You have to put weights. You have to put, for different people, different weights. You collect enough data to make those weights, not to be linear formula, but also to have weights in the front of the different... Okay. Exactly. This is absolutely correct. And as I just said, and it's explicitly indicated in the presentation, we use the results of the stakeholders' analysis where we put priority to different stakeholders. We use this... I can't pronounce the word... to put weights on the sample selection. So you use stakeholders according to these weights. This is exactly what we do. No, that formula is about time. That formula, the CT and the RTs, refer only to time. But these are summations of the benefits of different stakeholders which are weighted according to the results of the stakeholders' analysis. So in the stakeholders' analysis, you decide who is important and who is not based on the results of the stakeholders' questionnaire. And then when you accumulate costs and benefits, these weights are there. Exactly as you said. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Kevin. Really a question for any of the panelists, I think contrasting what we heard at the beginning about this way of analysing what people may be different stakeholders may be willing to pay. I suspect if any of you had tried to do that analysis before setting up your services, you would have found it all too frightening and you wouldn't even have begun. And yet all of you have to some extent or another created something which does have an element of sustainability and in which, in a sense, the value to the different stakeholders and what they're beginning to pay for it emerges because you took a risk, basically. And this is not unlike in a sense of the venture capital model of somebody needs to take a big risk without much evidence and prove that there is something of value there. I wonder if any of you want more to reflect on? Anyone? I think that with most VCs, they at least have an idea of the return they're going to get before they take the risk. Certainly for Europeana, we are going in wanting to build a sustainable model that also delivers efficiencies as well. So we're hoping to find out what those are as we go through the project. And one of the things that we're finding is that the industry, our main stakeholders, say the cultural heritage organisations don't have a clear understanding of what participating in digital services actually costs them. So we're hoping that through this project they become better off as well. So it's a continuous exploratory process. We're also working with Europeana but also within the project Europeana Cloud doing a more intangible assessment of the value using a model called the Balanced Value Model by a guy called Simon Tanner from King's College. So we're looking at trying to assess the impact of certain activities that we're getting involved in, not from a financial point of view but from a more intangible point of view. So I think that for us there's a lot of research that we need to do before we can actually understand what those benefits are. So yeah, I'll comment on the formula in your comment. So if we went into this analysis of stakeholders we said, well, these stakeholders have the biggest investment of the software and really rely on it or are going to be willing to pay more. That's obvious, right? Well, that's not the truth. The reality is that we have really big institutions like Harvard that use our software and they pay less than really small institutions in foreign countries. So it was really hard to kind of put everybody in a box. I'm not saying your formula is wrong but I'm just saying what my experience was. And so that's why we left it really open to say, okay, you tell us what you're willing to pay. Here's a range which we think you should pay but then you tell us what you're willing to pay and then you have to balance that with what they put in to the common good because lots of institutions don't pay anything but they contribute significantly to the common good, the common good meaning giving code that benefits everyone versus just their institution and how do you put a price tag on that? So it was really trial by error that we tried to figure out how to make it work. Just very quickly, I want to add that Archives Stainable Model is also based on a stakeholder analysis but was qualitative through interviews and testing scenarios. It was all qualitative. But also one thing that I really forgot to mention in the rush of making the 10-minute presentation is our initiative is working progress because the landscape is evolving so rapidly. For instance, now even within the US with the emerging new mandates coming from the government we are going to look probably within a couple of years again all the stakeholders, especially publishers and societies and their role. So I just want to emphasize that this should be seen as an ongoing process assessing the risks and experimenting with different models but we don't yet have the magic kind of solution. I just wanted to say that the way you rank the stakeholders is not up by the there are criteria, different criteria which has with the litigimacy of the involvement their willingness to get involved is not just by the size of the institution. And something that I wanted to point out is that this whole methodological process is the only way at least that I know that it exists and it's really state-of-the-art with regards to the development of the actual methods that you use that you can retrieve benefits and costs in their totality and you can support claims of sustainability of open access infrastructure. You can hear and verify benefits and costs but in a way to do it consistently over time and to identify the total economic costs and benefits you really need to start from the start of the whole process and this project just started so it has a year so I hope in a year I will be able to do that. I have a specific question to our European presenter and then a more general question. I was wondering when you were referring to the word cloud whether you meant actually some commercial providers providing some capacities or whether you used the word cloud to kind of picture the collaboration of the different institutions and my more general question is how do you see commercial providers fitting in your activities and do you think it makes it either to finance or maintain the services or to the contrary does it make it a bit more difficult? To answer that I'm not a technical person so let me see what I can do. It's called Europe on a Cloud because the funding source was about cloud based projects. The act of what we're actually developing is an infrastructure that sits in cloud based in a cloud storage solution and it allows people to submit their content via cloud computing services. Does this make sense? Who owns the cloud? Who owns the storage services? Well firstly European will invest in certain levels of services along with partners but that will be something the community also contributes to. Coming back to Kevin's question about one way of taking the risk and going forward and the other ways of going through the methodology and I think in open air we are a bit different than Archive or D-Space or DOIJ more similar to European is that we have we are working across Europe with many different stakeholders we even ourselves don't know the stakeholders and their power and their investment in open air and since we had the capability through a proposal to have a sustainability we thought let's make it the proper way to really see what's going on there and this is the answer to your question because we could take it the other way but we've done that through driver to open air and it doesn't go anywhere and second we hope that if we have this tool the results of this sustainability study is that we have a tool to go to the commission or the national governments because this will be a leverage. One last question before we go to the panel next panel. Very short question for Oya did you ever consider on your meetings there ever to organize peer review process around Archive? Actually if you haven't heard the question is about if Archive Group has ever considered adding a peer review layer to Archive actually I think another sustainable principle for us is to stick to the core values of Archive and not try to grow without having a really stable funding source so in many ways we are still trying to create a stable financial model for what Archive does well which is pre-print so in that sense we have not considered but on the other hand it doesn't exclude that Archive is compliant with several data exchange standards to be able to enable overlay journals and that I'm aware of these three overlay journals that have their peer review layer and that they rely on Archive for instance actually coming from friends Episcience it's a new initiative but that is the goal to create mathematics journals where there's a layer for peer review and Archive serves the role of repository good question Great Okay we have to end this session here now thank you very much again for your interesting talks See you Okay Now we have a panel discussion which will be moderated by Irina Yeah and why we are changing panelists I suggest you maybe to stand up and stretch your I don't know legs, arms I'd like to invite Kevin Ashley Ruta, Petrushkaiter and Damien Lecarpentier to join us sir so you can choose your seat sir