 in the future outlook. My name is Jan Hrishak and together with John Murmurslid, we are co-chairing this landscaping working group of the Oskar Institute of Work. In view of the fact that we just have had our validation workshop where we have been presenting the landscaping report to broader public and there is a strong overlap in audience, it is a little bit tricky to design the breakout session of today and therefore we decided to go a bit different way than the others and you see the outline here. So I will have a very brief presentation on the main results of the working group which are collected together in the report. We will have a short overview of the inputs which we gathered by the validation workshop. Then John will start the discussion on our future outlook and we will present some thoughts we have developed in this direction and finally we have the pleasure to have with us Joy Davidson from the Digital Collision Center which is a company that will help us to design the remaining part of the report. We will have a discussion with you where we prepared some guiding questions so in a usual way please use Slido to respond and John will close this session with some remarks in the end. This is again just a very brief reminder that the working group landscape consists of 23 members is chaired by John and me. These members were nominated solely by the member states because the group is working on a bit sensitive issue namely on the inputs and evaluation of the member states potential contributions to EOS and therefore we saw this restricted form is appropriate. Just to remember we have been asked to deliver on relevant national infrastructures which is done already by the existing landscape report. We had to take stock of the federation constraints and opportunities which is partially done in the report and we have to propose mechanisms and best practices that will facilitate convergence and alignment. This is still under development but the main ideas already collected in the report. What remains to be done is an analytical part of the report where we shall somehow comment on the preparedness of member states for the EOS association. This slide shows essentially the same. We are working in an iterative way because we believe that this landscaping report shall be to a most possible extent remained dynamic so it's a statistical report and therefore in an iterative way we are always reconsidering all the chapters and at the moment we have finalized and have discussed with the major stakeholders the second edition of this report and we are on the way for finalizing it, completing it by the landscape analysis which essentially shall contain national approaches to EOS and as said try to comment on the preparedness of member states and associated countries for the EOS implementation. This is essentially the same. It shall be known to most of you as you probably have seen the report. I'm not going into details. Let me just say here that in the validation workshop we have discussed chapters two to five while in today's workshop we shall discuss the approach to chapters six and seven namely to the future landscape analysis to be done over the next few months. So I said that the major contributions came either by this studies or the help from related projects but the major contribution came through something which we call the country sheet. We have collected a certain seven of them. Most of the member states have contributed. All the associated countries have contributed and we have gathered also two other inputs. The problem with these country sheets is that these country sheets are really snapshots which collect information for a given time and therefore needs to be regularly updated in order to provide sufficient input for the analysis. This shall also be eventually a part of our discussion because we certainly will be asking the members of the associated countries to keep the information in these country sheets up to date and eventually we can think about extending the questions in those country sheets if we see that as needed. For the future and this is one of the major outcomes of the validation workshop already is that it would be good to keep this information flux, this information on the level of policies, infrastructure and other activities in the member states up to date and therefore one should think about landscape dashboard and in addition to that it would be good to monitor the progress made in the implementation but these are parts for other discussion. So what is the report about? I mean, it is really a quite huge compendium of information that can serve as a reference. We had to make a compromise between the size and the content of the report and we decided that we will really focus on collecting the information on infrastructures, on projects, on strategic documents, on policies, on databases, on resources. We will reference them so that they can be in a way identified and the information that they contain is then just provided or indicated and the link is provided so that it can be found. We have unified the description of all the 50 AOS related projects. You can find them in annex one. While in annex two you find the current version of the already referred to countries. In the course of preparation of this report, we have been several times asking for feedback from the executive board, from the governance board and as said, we have had very recently a validation workshop where we discussed it on the content. In the next few slides, I will just briefly indicate what we have taken from the validation workshop, the full content of the validation workshop, all the comments and so on are not yet fully incorporated into the report. We are working on that. We have at the moment taken on board all the comments coming from the member states. We have identified those issues which can and shall flow directly to this report and we are categorizing the remaining inputs trying to understand how to best incorporate them into the report. The major contributors and participants are listed here and just straight away, let me show you some inputs from the validation workshop in order to demonstrate mainly that there is a very broad variety of issues that have been discussed, that there were inputs which came as very, very complex proposals. Not all of them can be tackled solely by the landscaping working group, but somehow as we are one of the executive board working groups, we will find a way how to pass them over to the working group for which those comments might eventually be more relevant and we will discuss all the contributions which came in through the validation workshop with the executive board next week. So just to illustrate that even so we did a quite huge effort, there was still an impression that several stakeholders in particular some data providers and eventually the users are not sufficiently well described in the report. We will work on that. We will do also a better effort to cross-reference with other information sources. So I think that most of the information is there, but we will make more, more stronger links to some of the, let's say, pan-European activities like the EIRG. There were many, many comments related to national initiatives and you will see that in the upcoming slides. I hope that part of these issues can be tackled in the analytical part in the chapters 6 and 7 on which we will work together with DCC in the next weeks. We will try really to describe better the diversity of countries and eventually highlight some good practice examples and describe the development in the individual member states in a bit more formative way. I'm not very sure that we can go to such a level of details that we really, really describe something which is a bit more related to the fair working group or to the architecture working group, but we will do some effort and align with the colleagues in those groups and try to do the best we can in the time we have to our disposal. There were quite strong requests in evaluating the contributions of the member states. This is something which is rather relevant as a request from the scientific community, but on the other hand, we feel that at the moment that evolution in national policies and at the national level is such a dynamic that we are running into danger that we are not describing equally the situation and therefore we will in very close collaboration with the governance board representing the member states and associated countries try to work on the analytical part of the report such that it's most up to date, but still allows for some evolution and we are really aware of the danger that if we create too rigid descriptions, it would be not moving us forward in the way we wish. So the policy and description and description of the evolutions and developments in the member states will be subject of the landscape analysis and we will use the comments which came in the validation workshop asking for some KPIs for some monitoring for some follow-up. We will use that and try to let it flow into the strategic research agenda which is another document. The executive board is working on that and together with the sustainability working group we are providing input to this very important document. There were other requests as you see them and there were some general considerations. We are trying to incorporate them straight away because we feel those very general are also quite relevant so we decided on spot that we will provide an additional annex to the report where we would include some COVID-19 related initiatives. We will respect the proposed changes in chapters three and five so we will move it much closer to the structures which are used and proposed by other organizations in particular EIRG. We will ask the governance board to consider updating before summer the country sheets so that the analytical part works with the most recent data. We will think how to better explain how to read the report so that it is of better use. And we will discuss in the working group the compromise to be made with respect to the length because of course if you have two contradicting notions one asking for a shorter readable report and the other one just adding information to that you have to find the compromise. And by that very short introduction I give over to John. Thank you. Thanks so thanks Jan and thanks for that. Good status update of where we stand today. I'm going to now try to show my slides with some forward questions. So I'll talk about next steps and introduce the discussion and then our intention is that many of the questions that I pose will be answered interactively as many as possible through the Slido feature once we move to the discussion phase. So the next steps as Jan has outlined were already agreed. We are in an iterative process of updating and improving the landscape report with input from many stakeholders but especially through the validation workshop. We are adding additional analysis which will be carried out by consultants and we'll hear from Joy Davidson about that. The analysis is meant to mean drawing conclusions from the state of play that we have analyzed in the country sheets and maybe though we need to be careful here maybe making recommendations for how we would like to see things evolve. I think the landscape report is a status report but it is in the context of movement towards an open science cloud and if we can see any barriers or problems we should identify them and make sure they appear somewhere in the work of the executive board. As you heard we'll have a second validation workshop after the summer. Now all of this needs to be understood in the context of the existing EOSC executive board, governance board and oversight systems. So all of these will expire at the end of this calendar year and so the work of the working group will end at that point by definition. We are working in the executive board to make sure that a proposed new EOSC legal entity, the not-for-profit association that is proposed, will be set up and ready for a smooth transition. So when we think about maintaining and continuing to monitor the data that has been gathered in the landscape working group, it is presumably part of the role of that EOSC legal entity association to carry that work forward beyond January 2021. So we are interested in refining, updating and receiving input on the report itself. Is the information in the report correct? Is it complete? So the country sheets need to be verified and checked and maybe additional information could usefully be added through the country sheets and there may well be other aspects of the European landscape that should be added. Jan already talked about stakeholder perspectives that may not have been captured sufficiently, though it is very hard for a landscape report to do justice to the many thousands of individual researchers across Europe who will be the content providers of the EOSC. The report will be completed at the end of this year by definition as I said and I think there is a general feeling that the report is useful and it would be more useful if it became a regularly updated monitoring tool and I assume then that the EOSC association would need to be responsible for that but the resources to do that would have then to be to be provided. The map on the right-hand side is just of course one of many that you will find in the report and it shows the interesting data that has been gathered in the country sheets and we're looking forward to the analytical contributions, the analytical section that will draw conclusions from this but already just from the patterns that you can see here, you can see that there are many countries which have already started on this journey towards open science and fair data while others are planning to put such policies in place. So the landscape report can be refined and will be and can be improved and will be but it also highlights some of the questions that the EOSC itself faces and these have started to come up already in the validation workshop of the landscape report. Those are not necessarily questions that can be answered within the report but they are conclusions to be drawn from the report or questions that EOSC itself needs to answer. So I think already we can say the landscape report has started to stimulate thinking and to raise issues that need to be addressed. So even though we don't have the full analysis in place, it is clear from what is already in the report and what we already know from our involvement in the e-infrastructure world, the investment from the member states in associated countries in e-infrastructure and services that have the potential to become part of the broader EOSC ecosystem greatly exceeds that that will come through the EOSC partnership or from EOSC funded activities in Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe even though those investments will be substantial. So the EOSC can only achieve its full potential if those national investments and research infrastructure investments become part of the system or become accessible through the system and there is a question then about to what extent does an infrastructure need to become a part of the system in order to become accessible through the system and that's maybe a technical question at some level but it's also a governance question. I should also have added that the EOSC can only achieve its full potential if the individual researchers and the research infrastructures that will generate host and curate the data become part of the ecosystem and become accessible through the ecosystem in the same way. We can also see that policy development towards open science is moving forward across Europe and in fact some of the inputs that we've received in the validation workshop are not corrections so much as updates to the situation as it was one year ago noting that new policies are under development and new initiatives have been started but so far I think the journey towards open access to publications is further advanced than the journey towards open fair data and services and that's fair enough that's reasonable the conversation has been going longer but it shows that we need to ask more than just is there a policy for open science but we need to talk about fair data and access to the services to use it. So finally many of these issues then point to questions that I don't think the landscape working group can by themselves answer but that the EOSC governance needs to have good answers to and we're going to come back to these interactively during the discussion but there is a whole hierarchy of questions about the motivation to become part of this ecosystem especially because the governance that is being proposed now is very bottom up and somewhat voluntary in its nature. The EOSC Association is unlikely to have any powers to do more than advocate encourage to set standards and to monitor the application of those standards. So we need to provide a system where there is a motivation for individuals to act in a way that builds the EOSC in the same way that individuals have acted in a way that makes the world wide web as useful as it is today. Individual researchers need a clear motivation to produce their data in a fair format even though that may in the short term impose work upon them it will increase the usefulness and the application of that data. These data then need to be made accessible through the EOSC system through EOSC portals and findable not just through domain specific tools but through EOSC systems. The infrastructures, the computer systems, data centers, the investments in computational infrastructure that will form the storage and compute resources needed to use those data also need motivation to either become part of or accessible through the EOSC and we need or there needs to be some motivation for research performing research funding organizations and maybe even a broad range of organizations on the long tail of research to join the EOSC association the legal entity in order to ensure that a single set of standards and a single way of working is applied across Europe and we don't end up with multiple competing approaches to open and fair data. Now these go way beyond the scope of the landscape report itself but now that we have a report which starts to lay out the structure of investments in open science and potentially available for EOSC across Europe I think these questions start to become interesting and as I said some of them were already raised at the last validation workshop so those can we can come back to those in the in the discussion session so that is all from me Jan do you want to move to joy next or do you want to start the discussion? I think it would be good if we have the presentations first and then we can have a discussion so that we keep also time. Okay there have been a couple of versions of the agenda circulating so Sara will save those questions then for the discussion and I'll invite Joy to start sharing her screen if we can do that I think we had a little technical hitch earlier. Yeah we did I will try to share my screen and if not I will ask one of you maybe to pick up and do it and hopefully you can see my screen just now. Yes we can Joy thank you great excellence well I'm just going to take about five minutes really to go through very quickly a couple of things so first of all I just wanted to say thank you to Jan and John for allowing the DCC to have a few minutes today to add to this discussion and let me put my screen on Splancho mode so I just wanted to start by saying just a couple of things about who we are as the DCC and some of you may already know us the digital curation center is based in the UK a partnership between the University of Edinburgh and Glasgow we run the DMT online data management planning service that is used by many research performing organizations and also in a national context in some member states we've been appointed to start the analytical part of the landscape reports work this is actually the first day that we're starting and it will run roughly to the end of September and it's approximately 30 days work that we'll be doing and one of the things that I think gives us a good understanding of that the landscape is the fact that we're involved in the Ferris Fair project which is another in for EOS activity we're involved in several of the research data lines working groups and RDA Europe and in addition to that we're also part of several of these new EOS 5B related task force so I put a couple in there that you can see so we're hoping that this will help to give us a bit more context and understanding of the area as we start this new landscape working group so the people who will be involved in doing the work myself Joy Davidson, my colleagues Thordis Mainstutter and Ryan O'Connor so it'll be starting pretty much from now and going to the next few months so as Yan was saying earlier the aims for this next bit of the work are really trying to focus on kind of pulling together all of that really useful information in the report as it stands now but really trying to pull out the policy related angles I think that was the key motivation is to try and get something that would be useful for policy makers and to try and focus on something that would be easy to read and easy to digest as Yan mentioned the report is very lengthy at the moment, lots of good information so it will be trying to figure out how we can make this concise and easy to read and easy to navigate. As I mentioned this common thread of the open science policy is something we've been asked to focus on. Considerations on MS, the member state readiness to participate in the OSC is also something that we're looking at and as we'll come back to a little bit later this is certainly one of the areas that we think will be most difficult there's the least amount of information that we have to work on in this part of the study and the last points which Yan and John both mentioned there has been some thinking about coming up with either examples of good practice or coming up with pragmatic recommendations so we will need to kind of come to an understanding of what it is we're looking to present at the end certainly good practice but whether we can take it forward in as much as practical recommendations is something that we'll decide as we go on. To start the work we will be picking up very much where the T6 consultancy group who has been working with the landscape group so far and also with the 5B projects to try and get the landscaping analysis work that they've done more joined up and comparable so we will be getting the raw data from the country sheet. We understand that they are in varying stages of completeness some are more complete than others and as we heard Jan's talk and John's talk there may be updates to come and we'll need to work out how to get these updates into the analysis and to work out how best to do that. We also need to work with the T6 consultancy company just to get a sense of what survey data is coming from the 5B projects many of them have done some landscape analysis surveys and open consultations some of that will be coming to us and others may not be ready in time so we need to work out with that and finally we're working with the landscape task force the landscape working group and the governing board just to try and figure out any other additional information and sessions like the validation workshop and this session should hopefully also help us to identify anything else that we might need to look at. So I just wanted to again come back to some of the activities that we're going to be doing over the next four months just to say that today is actually the first day of starting the work so from May 18th through to the end of September or possibly the start of October when the second validation workshop will take place we'll have a roughly about 30 days of effort spent trying to do the analytical part our aim is to try and have some initial first draft and this is likely going to be more around the structure of the report and how to get the information in that easy to read and digestible format so we'd be looking to get some sort of agreement on that by mid June with some initial fleshing out as I said we'll also be involved in trying to think about planning the second validation workshop and we were lucky enough to be able to take part in the first validation workshop and very much looking to bring back some feedback on what could be improved from that approach for the second workshop at the end of September or beginning of October so as I said we're really kind of at the early stages of our work on this day one but we have been thinking really about how we might start to structure the analysis so that it could be more useful one of the things we have been thinking about and this is where we'd really like to come back and get your feedback and when we move on to the discussion section of this a little bit later is whether something like the DCC's research data and management service model might be useful as you can see on the screen it covers many of the things that are in the current landscape report this was something that we developed out of our curation life cycle model and the links to both are on the screen if you want to have a little bit more of information about either but it very much kind of looks at the entire life cycle of how people carry out research and what sorts of things have to happen at different points all of these we think map well to the various different infrastructure components that need to be in place one of the caveats we probably have to say here is that we came up with this model very much from a research performing organization point of view and this is something that we generally tend to use with institutions so whether they're higher education institutions or research performing organizations we've been looking at it very much at that level but I do think it scales up and it would be something that could be considered either at a national, a regional or an international level so that's one of the key things we'd really like to get from you today is whether this sort of a structure might be useful the other thing to bear in mind is that there could be very many different people offering something at each stage of the diagram if you like so it may not all happen in one place there may be but some cases happening at the local institutional level there may be parts offered by SREs or other research infrastructure there could be national shared services there may also be things offered by specific funders or publishers and there will be different domain specific repositories so we would need to try and think about how we present all of this but we think this might be a useful framework for us to start to progress a little bit so as I mentioned we will have a couple of questions later on about this particular model and we just very much appreciate your feedback on it the other thing I just wanted to pick up on before we move on to the discussion I mentioned earlier we've been asked to focus largely on the open science policies as we move forward John mentioned that we've seen much greater movement towards open access publishing policies across Europe and we'd like to see that kind of same level of formalization with regards to open science what we're proposing to put forward is a possible starting point for this is based on some work that we've been doing with Spark Europe which is every six months we come up with an updated analysis of open science policies in Europe and these are usually done at the national level we released our latest version of that just last month I believe it was or February 2020 sorry and in that version we actually introduced for the first time a more structured way of looking at the policies and that structure was built upon some work that we did in fair as fair as part of work package 3 which was looking at the policy landscape in relation to fair you can see on the right hand side of the screen we had come up with a lot of elements it was 42 elements actually that we looked at in terms of what might be included in a policy for the Spark Europe update we actually narrowed that down to 10 I think that will be something that we're looking to liaise with the working group and other stakeholders in the coming weeks just to kind of pin down which set of elements might be useful and again the links are there so if anybody wants to have a look and to provide some feedback we'd be very grateful the other thing to maybe pick up on here is that we see the structured analysis of the policies as being very much instrumental if we ever do want to move more towards the dashboard style approach that was something that came out of the the validation workshop is that for the information in the landscape report and the various countries she's to be useful some sort of a dashboard would be a useful way to do it so this we hope might be one of the ways to try and start that process of making this stuff visualized the last one I just wanted to pick up here this is very much a question rather than much that we have to offer at this point at this point in time and this is on assessing readiness for joining the OSC and we've heard various different discussions over the course of the day from the rules of participation group which I joined earlier a little bit from the sustainability group to the best of my understanding there isn't currently a framework on how to assess whether a research forming organization or indeed a member country a member state could be deemed ready to join EOSC or not there is a very big tension from what I can see between trying to be inclusive and having lots of components being able to come in and build the EOSC but then trying to make sure that there is good quality and that there is some level of sustainability so we have questions really about how much should the rules of participation feed into assessing readiness does something like being on a national roadmap have to factor into it in terms of longer term sustainability so we do have some questions what we would suggest is again based on that research data management service model which we showed you earlier what we could do in terms of thinking about readiness is at least try to give a flavor of what is available in each of the member states with regards to each of the components in our model and that might be a good starting point for them saying once these things are in place then how do we start to assess whether they're actually ready to join EOSC so there are some questions that we have really as to how to progress that particular area of the study and feedback there would be really useful stories so I think that's basically all we have now we do have some questions that we'll ask after in the general discussion session so I think at this point I'll just hand back to John so that we can start that process Thank you Joy Thanks, can you stop sharing and Sarah perhaps you put up the Slido questions Yeah, sure So I just wanted to come back to a couple of points which have been raised in the chat there were quite a few questions while Joy was speaking about how we assess EOSC readiness in the member states but I think at the end you acknowledge that's an area where we would like well we still have work to do and maybe it doesn't make sense to capture the whole of Germany at a single state of readiness when there is a readiness of the funders there is a readiness of researchers there's a readiness of individual Helmholtz centres and so forth so the granularity may not be sufficient there we should also there was also a question about connections of EOSC to countries outside of Europe and outside the associated countries of Horizon Europe and I think that's an open area where we understand that we need to ensure that science is global and that we're not creating new barriers to participation but we don't want to proceed at the speed of the slowest the slowest region in the world here so Europe is prepared to take a lead as long as our standards are open and transparent and clear and we are quite happy to inter-operate with other other science clouds around the world so the first question in the poll is now up which is one of those that I posted what is the motivation for individual researchers or maybe for research performing organizations to produce data in a fair format so Sara how would you like to use the polling feature here so I think people should enter their answers in the slide though or I mean as we have only 15 minutes left maybe I suggest that if anybody wants to comment they raise their hand and maybe we get their answers lively maybe it's quicker why don't we try that so I'm not sure where to see the hands raised Patricia has entered an answer thank you, yes thank you that's a good one Patricia wants to speak let's give Patricia please do Patricia? you can speak now if you want okay maybe not anybody else want to to give an answer here I would say that this is in fact the simplest question of our list because there is a strong incentive for individual researchers to make their data as widely as possible to propagate the results of their work as widely as possible this has always been recognized as part of carrying out science and reproducibility transparency, the ability of others to verify the work will be greatly aided by that and for research performing organizations a measure of success is the uptake of the data which is made available so okay reproducibility has appeared quite a lot but I think individual scientists we may start to see people noting somehow in their CV the accesses that have been made to their data in the same way that citations of their articles have become part of what you talk about for your research reputation Sarah should we go on to question 2? yeah I would say so so if you if you make your data fair why should EOSC be the preferred access mode why would you not design your own system or simply share it with members of your own research community what is the added value through EOSC so do we have any hands raised? not, not at the moment okay let me add an answer of my own just in case we forget it it should save you a lot of work I would hope that doing it through EOSC is simple easy and doesn't require writing a lot of software if that's not true then EOSC needs to keep working on on those aspects because we're investing money through Horizon 2020 in projects which should deliver a set of tools and a set of standards but if those standards are not easy to use then we've failed so yeah safety and easy to use and the individual research organization should not need to develop and write its own software stack to do this single point of access is a very good point more data could compare with data adds value by being part of a large repository ability to monitor citations can be monitored in this framework critical massive users no point uploading your data whether or not users I don't think access through EOSC should be should prevent access through other mechanisms I don't think you are handing your copyright over to EOSC but the standards should be clear and simple to use and therefore attractive in themselves yeah we've got a lot of answers here that's good 15 answers already very good thank you everyone and people are putting stuff in the chat also okay very good next question then Sarah now this is more for the owners or responsible organizations for the infrastructures not so much for the the creators of the data for the managers of the data centers or the computer centers what is the motivation to federate those or to make those those resources accessible not just the data to be to be used but the compute cycles to be accessed through EOSC so somebody says sustainability I think that only applies if there is a financial return right so that is that is a good point there needs to be a way of accounting for this provision of resources in kind to EOSC so I think all of these answers are great ones thank you everybody I think these are all answers that we should pass over to the sustainability working group of the executive board because we we need to make sure that this is not a charitable donation to EOSC that the resources are recognized either by the national funders or by the European commission if making things part of EOSC is to deliver greater sustainability that sustainability needs to be linked and not simply hoped for the benefits to the individual researcher are clear the benefits to the owner and operator of the infrastructure need to be equally clear shall we go to the next question again we have generated quite a lot of input here thank you everyone and then finally this is very much for organizations maybe individual research institutes maybe individual universities maybe alliances of universities maybe funding agencies or even ministries why should they be part of the EOSC association why should they be going forward why should they be part of the governance structure of this ecosystem so we only have one person only one person has dared to give an answer here I would say something about being part of setting the standards yes that's just popped up I think it's also we should imagine that the legal association will somehow define the definition of what is the EOSC the standard setting but also the way it evolves the way it changes the way that sustainability is defined and success is defined and the monitoring of it influence the future development exactly and perhaps influence the future funding streams in horizon Europe as we said to ensure a balanced perspective if you were a you would not want the entire governance to be dominated by research organizations from one research field or only from large countries or to have nobody from the arts and humanities represented at the table because the way that data is treated in different communities maybe sufficiently different yep so we've got we've now got 17 suggestions there and we have 5 minutes before the end so Sara was that the last of our questions or do we have a couple more so we have some questions from Joy I guess let's just go to those quickly yeah I think I would say maybe if we can skip to the final question that would be the best okay so this is the one I was really kind of looking to get was the one that you just went past sorry the second to last okay so the slide bar is the previous slide and essentially the question really is you know when we're thinking about Yosk readiness it was trying to understand what really should be done and what should be done is trying to understand what really should shape that what do we have now that we might be able to use so I mentioned you know we have things already taking shape like the draft rules of participation technology readiness levels are something that are already used and people are very familiar with especially in the European Commission context in the S-free being included in national road maps is something again that we're quite familiar with sustainability which I see is taking a big lead actually and surprisingly I know that the commission is similarly doing some work on sustainability of research infrastructures so how many of these things really do we need to be thinking about the other question and maybe if we have just a couple of minutes yeah go ahead just to say who should be assessing readiness just one of the kind of questions that always comes to my mind is who may see decisions about who's ready would this be a sort of a self-assessment for people wanting to join or is it something that happens at the member state level or is it something that happens at the governance level so there's lots of things I think we need to think about so it's interesting to see technology readiness levels and sustainability interestingly the draft rules of participation are plummeting down a little bit which may be interesting that may be because those are seen as a technical the assumption is that those do exist and it's more about willingness and readiness and having a sustainable funding route I think some of the draft rules participation touch on the policy you know about open access so now you've mentioned it that's clicking up in popularity I know it's interesting so sustainability and technology readiness definitely we'll have a look at some of these things as things we could start to make some assessments on readiness at the starting point so that's been really useful so thank you very much I see we're one minute to the end so I'll thank you that's great and fortunately I didn't have any long and detailed conclusion to draw from this except to say that we're on an interesting point in the EOSC journey we've done quite a lot of work as you've seen in trying to capture the current state of play across Europe and the associated countries as there is a bottom up movement towards open science and open data and the goal of EOSC is to kind of capture the energy that is coming in this bottom up discussion but focus it on a single set of standards and a single set of systems and a single sustainability model so that we don't go through a kind of a VHS versus Betamax argument over the best way to make data fair and the commission is willing to put significant additional resources into the system in order to achieve that outcome so this is a really good confluence of bottom up emergence of a movement in the scientific and research communities top down funding that will enable things to move a little bit faster and I think what the landscape group has tried to do is capture this evolution as it is happening and it will be it's very important that we we draw the right conclusions from this but the conclusions are also a way to stimulate and influence the future direction of travel so for me up till now the landscape report has been a description of the world and now as we start to move into the analysis and thinking about the policies we start to say how we would like the world to change in order to make EOSC happen and so the input today has been extremely interesting and useful in that regard we know we have to be a little bit cautious in some of these areas because we cannot simply tell large country governments exactly how they should manage their research but I hope we can lay out a persuasive case that building an EOSC ecosystem that works for all of the participants is our shared goal and this landscape report is a good starting point at describing what that system needs to look like so thanks very much to everybody who's participated and thanks to all of the speakers and I think we need to wrap up. We've had a lot of questions about what can be shared out of this session we will share all of the slides we have shared drafts of the report itself with a number of key stakeholders some of you who are in the room the next draft will be shared much more widely I don't know Jan if you want to say any more about that but we do recognize that we don't want to share incorrect and incomplete information but we do want to share it more broadly before it's finalized so that's all from me anything else from you Jan? Thank you very much for everything and I agree also with the part you said just now it would not make much sense to share with you a half baked report as soon and then it will be distributed very broadly Okay so we're a couple of minutes late but thank you very much to everybody for managing this very smoothly and thanks to the technical team who I hope have made this work for everybody who's been participating thank you all Thank you very much so now we break for 30 minutes and the final Q&A session starts at 4pm in this Zoom room so please stay connected here if you want to participate to the final Q&A session Thanks