 Okay, so let's start this first day of the Fit4RI Final Virtual Summit, so our final conference. So we will have three days of conference or three mornings and welcome everyone to this first day. So I just want to highlight some housekeeping information about the way that we are going to organize our sessions. So all the events will be recorded and the presentations and the recordings will be available in the Heaven page where we have all the information about the program and also all the details to join the different Zoom sessions. By default we have all microphones off from the participants. You can also turn on or turn off your camera. I think it's better during at least the keynote presentation is better if you can turn off your webcam and then later you can enable your camera. So to participate, okay, you can use the chat if you want to put questions, you can do it in chat or if you want to exchange any comment during the presentations with other participants you can interact via chat. This is a normal Zoom meeting room. During this conference we will use also a webinar Zoom room for another session but this is a normal Zoom meeting room in order to allow more participation. If you want to speak you just need to raise your hand, it's close to the chat and the participants list. You have the possibility to raise the hand and then you can turn on your microphone and camera to put the question or to make any comment. So we will have after the keynote presentation we will have a moment for questions and answers so you will be able to join and to participate in the discussion. Use the hashtag RRI4Real to discuss also in the social media this event. If you want to also to make a mention to the project Twitter account you can also do it or just use the hashtag in the different social media channels, okay, we are more focused on Twitter but you can also use it in other channels. So welcome to this first day of our final summit today, it's our first day of the conference and dedicated to the RRI culture and skills. And for that we have three sessions, four sessions sorry, because we have two parallel sessions and then interactive session after the parallel sessions and we open with this first session where we have our coordinator Andrea Riccio to open the conference and to welcome you to this final conference. And then Kemal Hassan has a keynote to have a provocative keynote to set up and to start the discussion around these issues today focused on RRI culture and skills. So Andrea the floor is yours, the kickoff of our conference is done, so please join me and welcome to this to our final conference. Yeah, thank you Pedro and thank you everybody for being here, well I'm pretty excited. I don't know if it would have been even more exciting being present, we tried a lot but for safety reason we decided then to have a virtual conference. So I will start sharing my screen in a few moments, here we are, because I really don't want to talk about the project, because you will hear a lot about the project from my colleagues that really work in the heart on this, I just want to share with you some keywords and some key message that we really developed during this almost four years project because in the end we had an extension of the project of six months trying to be present, as I said. So, well let's start, when we started thinking about working on RRI and science, we had since the very first moments, it was back to 2016, just one simple idea in mind that science as all the biggest addition of the last century has entered a phase of deep crisis in terms of trust and reputation exactly as it was happening to all the big institutions and this crisis could have been caused, we really didn't have any answer and probably we don't have it even now, by as the results of some interacting factors such as globalization from one side but also individualism on the other and also the idea of, well, the upcoming new way of socializing and asking for a greater collective engagement in societal relevant matters, we thought that responsible research and innovation and open science could be the answer to overcome and manage the social transformation that we were seeing affecting science and innovation, but at the same time we know pretty well that we should move from an abstract and I would say also somehow romantic way of looking at responsibility that could be beautiful maybe but not necessarily useful towards our concrete approach of responsibility, grounded solidly in research funding and performing organization and capable of deeply involving scientists main actors to foster a process of realist divisional change, we really were thinking about this and we were trying to find out the element of a proposal and on a way of seeing the future of science that could represent this potential answer and especially this inner idea that we had, well, sorry, well, our desired recipe was based on some clear pillars. The first one was the desire to engage and put into relation all the actors involved in science and innovation according to a quadriplellic approach, so to bring together the academia but also the industrial sector together with policymakers and citizens but also to address relevant scientific issues through realist cases so to ground solidly in reality our RRI and the US approach basically on co-creation. We also wanted to foster transdisciplinary spreading the world of responsibility also in those sectors and in those disciplines that usually are not very keen to like the hard sciences. We also wanted to promote transparency and openness by producing open tools and resources that could be available for the growing responsibility and openness community and in hand we wanted also to focus on the governance dimension of organization in order to pave the way for real institutional change supported by responsibility and openness. We tried, I think, even successfully to reproduce this structure in our real working and so in our work plan so we can see that PIC for our RRI is based on three main strengths, we can define it as strengths that helped us in developing our idea. The first one is an analysis trend and we tried to work package one and work package two to see what was happening so the state of the art in terms of RRI in different sectors and in different countries then we moved to a testing phase where we tried to test possible solution through co-creation experiments and especially to develop also training tools to support these real cases and in the hand we were in production so we worked concretely on promoting changes through guidelines for governance. Each day of the conference is dedicated to one of these trends so today we will start for the RRI culture and skills then we will move to the part concerning more the institutional change and in the very end we will work on RRI policies so seeing how it is important to look at different steps and to have a concrete process towards real change. This is in a few words I hope not to be long how and why we decided to work on fit for RRI but the real idea is that this conference which is based on shaping the future of open science and society relation is not just an occasion to tell you how we worked because well this will not be useful in our mind this is thought to be a collective gathering to keep working on the future of RRI and open science because this is our urgency beyond the outcomes of the next upcoming European framework program and to this we will also talk with the European Commission in the last day of the conference try to understand how to shape this future but and so my idea is that indeed the best is yet to come because I feel the start and I think that all the fit for RRI members and I'm sure also you feel that this is the start of a new phase that involved the entire RRI and the open science community of practice. We want to build upon the bricks of our project and another similar one because we are in contact with many of you and your presence here is testified is in order to try to contribute to develop a novel powering for science then nowadays has to be open inclusive reflected and socially engaged. I want to thank all of you and especially to thank the fit for RRI on social because it's hard to find such a great partners to spend three years together discussing a lot and working a lot because without them this project wouldn't be possible. Thanks to everybody and now I think that I can leave the floor to our keynote speaker for the first day Kemal Azen. Good morning. Thanks Kemal for being here. Good morning I'm assuming everybody can hear me. Yes perfect yeah lovely. Well first good morning again I'd like to echo what Andrea has just said and extend a warm welcome to you all wherever you are. I'd also like to thank Pedro for his introductory comments as well. My name is Kemal Azen and Andrea asked me to help kick start the day with a few introductory words. I'm just going to talk for about 10 minutes or so. Admittedly I find Zoom quite painful so hopefully it won't be too painful for you to listen to me but before I start I need to enter a couple of caveats. First and I remember I was looking at Andre as a poster in the background. I'm not an RRI expert. I'm probably more of a critical friend or an observer. Second I've taken the liberty of changing the content of my presentation. It's over seven months since the original date of the conference in Rome and at the risk of stating the obvious a lot has happened since then. Rather than structure my talk around the original themes of a retrospect and prospect of RRI and the fit for RRI program in particular I want to highlight some things that I have observed in relation to the pandemic and tie them into the debate about where RRI might go. Third my approach is a mix of rhetorical and controversial. I think Pedro made reference to that. I will therefore leave you to take up any relevant issues in your work and in the conference over the next few days. And finally, as I think is quite obvious now, I do not have any slides or presentation notes to be gali with. So as a starting point I want to highlight the role of science and research in the current debate on dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. First one of the most dominant themes in the public debate has been the idea that decisions are led by the science. What we seem to have forgotten in the debate however is the infallibility of science and research. That is have we levelled with the public about the reality of how science and research can or cannot help us predict the future and control the world. Here there is an obvious issue of responsibility in and among the research community. Second, are all disciplines and research participating equally in the debate about the pandemic? Granted there is a need for modelling but I am still waiting for a more open debate about epistemology or even ontology because there has been a tendency in the narrative about tackling COVID-19 to adopt the language of war. It seems apparent that some of these issues for debate have been ignored or sidelined for the indefinite future. Third, I have been amazed and truly grateful for the sacrifice of many people to help us try and deal with the numerous issues that the pandemic has thrown out from clinical to economic. But at the same time, this is perhaps my controversial point, I have thought that at times some colleagues in the research community have allowed themselves to be hijacked by other stakeholders such as politicians for example. Now these three observations are not exhaustive but in terms of RRI they highlight two important subplots for me. The first is about power. Who has the power when dealing with the pandemic and how is it being distributed? Is power something you possess or is it relational? Critically does the research community have any power? Second, who have been the agents of change in tackling some of the issues around the pandemic? Have there been any agents within the research community and are these individual or collective? Fundamentally the question these raise is how has RRI been relevant? Now I want to turn to RRI itself. Definitions of RRI seem to cover different components, public and societal engagement, open access, gender equality, ethics, science education and governance. And these seem to involve the four main stakeholders of academia, citizens, government and industry. I think in an earlier slide we made reference to the idea of a quadruple helix. Now the temptation with thinking about RRI or the fit for RRI program is to look simply at the outputs that have been delivered. For example the reports that have been uploaded on the website or indeed this conference itself. For me the relevance of RRI or the fit for RRI program is not with outputs but with outcomes and impacts. Now admittedly people often struggle to understand the difference between an outcome and an impact. This is because the terms are sometimes used interchangeably and are often provided without any definition. For what we are seeking to do it might be easier to think of outcomes as the things that you will be measuring, for instance changes for your citizens or organisations and impacts as the things that other people will be measuring. For example changes in headline statistics at local authorities or health agencies, may record. Now the relevance for us is simple. I want you to consider what have been the outcomes and impacts you have been delivering both through this program and your day-to-day work. Now moving forward I want to bring the different things I have highlighted, the observations about COVID, the two subplots around power and agency and the need to move from focusing simply on outputs and looking to outcomes and impacts and start thinking about the future. First the most obvious thing is to ensure that we do not think about RRI and indeed open science as a program, discipline or a subject. In fact in many ways we need to ensure we avoid thinking about RRI as an end in itself. Here we must not see the demise of horizon funding streams as something sad but the opening up of an open source of knowledge and again making reference to Andrea's last slide, the best is yet to come. Second we need to have some honest discussion on epistemology, truth and knowledge in the research and innovation community and in parallel think about how this has translated into the outcomes and impacts we are trying to achieve. Where and when we have these discussions is still open to debate but they are needed ever more so. Third I think we need to celebrate our greatest achievement to date, creating a sense of community. Here we have started the process of recognizing common interests and working out what people care about. What we now need to do is think about how this translates into power and how we can act as agents of change. Here I want you to ask yourself was participating in the Fit for RRI program worth it and if so how are you measuring the benefits and how can these be used in the future? Now the last point is one of optimism and I would love to end my comments here on that note but I have to end with a note of caution around where and when responsibility ends in research and innovation and revisit the issue of power and agency again. Take for instance GDPR. Rightly there has been a lot of emphasis on privacy and protecting the interests of the public and I know from first time experience that there has been quite a bit of effort by companies for example to comply with GDPR rules but is it really relevant given the immense power of data and the hundreds indeed thousands of data points that are being monitored and scraped for information. Put differently does big data really need access to my medical records to know my medical condition and well be. Or take the growing field of emotion analytics where automated technology is being used to read our emotions. Now the automatic sentiment analysis and the wild project was a horizon funded project a few years back. Its main name I'm going to take this directly from the website is to deploy and capitalize on existing state-of-the-art methodologies models and algorithms algorithms for machine analysis of facial vocal and verbal behavior and then adjust and combine them to realize naturalistic human centric human computer interaction and computer mediated face-to-face interaction. Now granted that is a bit of a mouthful and clearly this research has commercial value in fact this is probably one of the reasons they have been successful in attracting funding and finance and my understanding is that this project has been successfully spun out commercially. Put differently it is an absolute gold mine for digital marketers. Now I have not read the terms and conditions of the use of the the use of this Zoom platform like most of you today I clicked on a couple of buttons to provide me access but it is quite possible indeed probable that our emotions are being captured read and analyzed as we discussed this morning and potentially for a marketing opportunity in the future. Now for me these two examples highlight how our futures are being shaped for us through research and innovation. Finally then if this is the case how is RRI relevant and what can we do as researchers and innovators to ensure that our futures are shaped positively. On that note I will end thank you. Thank you Kamal. Well I think that you raised a lot of like open questions and a lot to discuss about so I have some like curiosity about your talk but I would like to hear the audience before there is any question from the audience please raise your hand I will try to to give you the floor just carry them Kamal or if you want to write something in the chat so I will start. For example I will use the pandemic as an example in the role of the scientific community both in terms of powers but also in terms of responsibility because as you were saying sometimes science had to like lose lost his power in favor of like policymaking and so on in this pandemic while they should be while it should be like the most representative topic but on the other hand at least what from what I'm seeing in Italian debate for us science was more or less medicine while on the other hand maybe because I am somehow RRI biased I do believe that like scientific task forces working on the issues of a pandemic such the COVID-19 should be really interdisciplinary should engage especially anthropologists and social scientists and so on because apart from being how big like sanitary crisis this pandemic is especially a social crisis and not only a sanitary and an economic one how do you think that what do you think about this? I wasn't expecting to have to answer questions I mean I think I made reference to this issue that some of the disciplines that we've talked about are not being heard and and certainly if I was to take the the UK's an example we've had a lot of emphasis on for instance the modeling and this is not to undermine the the amazing work the modelers are doing but I think Andrea you made reference to anthropology one of the things that struck me is that we have been the behavioral scientists for instance in this debate why are our politicians scratching their head that actually people are not following the rules and regulations so I think you made reference to the need to engage with hard science and I think we have to accept that in times of crisis there is possibly I don't know what the word is but I suppose there is a sense of kind of priorities in terms of focusing around the clinical and medical aspect but also thinking about some of the economic but I think what I would look to therefore is that people who are representing for instance the clinical the hard sciences should also themselves try and reach out to the other disciplines and not let the other stakeholders within this quadruple helix steer the debate so I think there's something internally for us to think about okay how does the hard science that I'm always uncomfortable with that term you know how do we open up discussions for instance around you know artificial intelligence and you know how we nudge people's behavior you know we need we need to think about that I think just one final comment it's worth saying I suppose why I was making reference to my note of caution a lot of big business out there is already doing this I mean if you look at the kind of big data the whole big data where big data is going I mean they understand this perfectly why we are struggling in terms of a track and trace and trying to understand the modeling and linking the modeling is something about our institutions but we have to accept that there are other stakeholders within this quadruple helix who understand the need for interdisciplinarity so how we learn from them I don't know but we better do it pretty quickly or they'll just take us over okay thank you Kamal we have another question in the chat from Ron Yipofen he says and I'm looking for your comment we all know that science has limits there is a great deal of uncertainty in scientific outcomes how can that best be presented in public forums so that all confidence is not lost that's a good one thanks Ron I suppose I mean I don't want to answer that question I'm going to push that question back to you because you in a way you stated the really obvious challenge that you as RRI experts have to address so so Andrea I'm going to push that question to you and given the experience of the last three or four years how would you address that issue well that's not easy because for example going back to pandemic because well it influenced a lot its life one of my own question is how the science community could prevent fake news should they be part an active part of preventing fake news or just they have to to give their job well and who who others who which other actors should intervene in terms of fake news it's an open question what is important is that situation like this put again even if not as much as it should science in the middle and this is a very good chance to try to recover confidence and somehow I guess at least in the Italian context this happened we started to see again scientists at least but there is still a long way to do and I really don't have at the moment a clear answer but there are a lot of questions for you so I'm going to read the one that you received Fabio Fiodos say very interesting what you said about the sense of community again connected to RRI and what these means in terms of power and opportunity to activate change could you please elaborate more on that then we have hemahiris that say there has been an argument that covid has actually increased acceptance of open science and that already principle and tools for example preprints science communication rapid previews and so on how can we keep any positive momentum that we have gained and in the end uh Antonella Camisa asked to you Kemal in your opinion are negationists for example in UK against science or politics oh thank you one did you take notes okay yeah I've taken notes really making me work this morning I thought this was going to be kind of easy with my coffee and brioche and okay well let me look at let me let me kind of make let me comment on the second question first in whatever I mean I mean I think there is a there is a you know there is a if you read certain newspapers you know one would get the impression that actually there is now some positive momentum around uh I mean I mean I'm Phil now I have a slight regret that this is not this is not to be a covid 19 conference and what the role of RRI is so so I think we need to also put that into perspective um but but I think I think certainly if you read some elements of the press there there clearly has been some positive momentum in terms of um actually how we see the role of science um within or how we tackle the the debate um I would say that I would say that it would be quite interesting to to to get a feel for um for Joe public's sense of um what this all means so so when we have the the images of you know Brighton or Bournemouth Beach that are full of people and they've they've been they've been given the advice the scientific advice and they've totally ignored it so um I would I would hope that Emma is right personally I don't see that um and certainly not when I see the the the daily briefings or the weekly briefings I I don't get the the sense of that um but that doesn't mean it's not gonna that's that's not gonna happen um I mean there is clearly something that that's in parallel which I think has is important for the science and research community and that's in terms of actually how we're doing dealing with some of the some of the I guess effects of the the pandemic so this kind of low level of anxiety and clearly now we're having a debate around mental health and social isolation um but I don't have to answer that question I mean I think I am now I mean I hope you're right um I don't feel that um but anyway let's let's let's see um I mean the the last the first question was really about um communities of practice um and and I get the sense of actually what what what we can do um I mean one of the interesting things is is is I think amongst the science I I do feel that as you know we need to create our own communities of practice and I think we need to have honest debates about issues about truth and issues about knowledge and this um I mean it's interesting that we keep talking about science and uh there's an always debate around the philosophy of science is actually what do we mean by science and and it's no coincidence that when we think about RRI we're talking about research and innovation there are clearly other stakeholders other other agents that are involved in the discussion around research and innovation that perhaps we haven't kind of engaged with and you know for me the most obvious is actually the finance community you know do do we actually engage with in terms of the investors the funders the finance in terms of actually what you know what is the what is the issue about responsibility for for them um but I don't know I mean I you know the problem about me is I never know what I think until I've written it down so I probably need to sit down and think about that and I might come back to that or maybe somebody else will provide a far more intelligent answer to that I mean the third one was um I mean Andrea can you just kind of just repeat that again for me there the the round the the third question is we can't hear you Eurya sorry the third question was about uh uh the negationism of COVID-19 and other issues do you think that like these people for example from the perspective you live in UK are against that are against science or against politics um yeah I think I think you know my sense is people still you know we've been talking about the whole public understanding of science for instance debate for the last 20 or 30 years and and the reality is that although we've had lots of initiatives around citizen science and science within four what is it the the swaths and as you know I've been kind of involved in that Joe public still doesn't understand actually what is science I mean you know their understanding typically of technology is that bit of kit that they use to turn on their their their TV so I mean there's a whole issue about epistemology and philosophy and um and truth and knowledge which um the public um does not does not know about perhaps does not need to know about I guess where my concern is is that I think we in the research and innovation community haven't leveled with them we haven't told them that actually we can't solve this problem we're not doing that I mean we're we're we're we're in a sense we're playing God and uh we're not leveling with the public and I think what is always interesting is that when you you're quite keen to promote this issue about interdisciplinarity and multi-disciplinarity and one of the things that always strikes me for instance which is actually different culturally is for instance when you talk to some clinicians in certain countries they do play as God and and given the issues that the clinical issues around the pandemic um there is there is um you know there is this issue about you know culturally how we perceive for instance the role of science the role of clinicians in all of that but but I suppose that I suppose I think in terms of the UK and I'm not here to represent the UK yet because actually I'm not sitting in the UK right now I mean clearly I think the the public are just fed up with everybody I think they've just fed up with everybody that claims to be an expert or to represent them and and so you know we have to win the trust back. Don't think that now is finished because I say that René von Schoenberg raised his hand so I will give the floor to René but we also have a question from Raphael that say what we talk about with a power do we talk about it in the means of political power which is more or less top down and is it helpful for responsible science I would say no as we would become politicians and stop being scientists so what could this notion of power to foster urgently needed change mean maybe for a notion of a fluid power shaping discourse could be could help here or not keep it in mind and I give the floor to René von Schoenberg. Hi René, welcome. Hi Andrea, good to see you. I just have a small observation I you mentioned also in your introduction the word trust and it seems to me that it is this the concept of trust is rather loosely used in in in various meanings. I think it's important here to distinguish between trust in science as such as a system of information or you know science as a functional authority to other spheres of our society as Niklas Luhmann for instance saw it or trust in expert judgments and these are two different things and these two things are also related in a different way to RRI and open science. I think science as as a reliable source of information for other spheres for decision-making spheres for example so the trust worthiness of a scientific system and the type of expectations we can have from science to to produce the right type of information which we would need for decision-making is a total different issue than trust in expert adjustment. So in this first element of course as you already mentioned on covid this gave open science a real boost because we needed of course in a short time reliable information and and and covid at the same time it reveals that our system does not necessarily supply that if we don't operate with the type right type of public governance of science and that means that you let scientists share and collaborate very early in the process prior to publishing and that means another way of operating science actually and this gives really a boost to open science and unfortunately of course we see covid as an exceptional issue and probably post-covid we want to go return to business as usual but that would be a real pity of course in terms of open science as currently operated to a large extent in the covid realm. So trust in expert adjustment this is a completely different issue so trust in I mean obviously experts operate in in political arenas and in different policy contexts and the issue of whether they produce rubbish or sensible questions is an issue for deliberative democracy and the way we involve experts in advisory committees and so on so that's an order an order challenge I think we have we have improved ourselves on that front quite a bit actually in the last few years but on the first issue we haven't addressed this much and I think with open science we can help to make the science system as such better by having for instance addressing also the issue of reproducibility of data you know recent recent surveys in nature shows that 70 percent of the articles published in nature underlie data which are not reproducible by colleagues so this is this is quite significant and I will not give a lecture about what is the diagnosis of this you can read that in in the bookside published but this is an issue which we have to address and this is of a completely different nature than for example the the expert judgment trust I think which you predominantly seem to address so thanks for your attention sorry for for too long intervention maybe thank you to you Rene your intervention was like oh our right fold on the issue of data reproducibility but thank you because you raised an interesting topic that probably we can also keep working on in the next three days that we have to face and also in your double interview we will be back with this and I don't know if Kemal has some other quick comment on this no I think that I think that summed up I guess quite neatly some of the some of the blurring of boundaries when you're you're worried about the post day it's gone Andrea from here it's gone it's gone say bye bye to it no I think I think I think in the same way that you know you could ask you could you could raise that question about for instance the the notion of responsibility as well so I think I think I think I think no I don't really have a comment to that but that was fine okay so you have still just the last question which was the question that Rafa made to you about what we talk about when we say power did you kept note about this did you keep note okay or you want me a peek like a summary of the question well I mean I mean power is an interesting thing and and I think you know I think I'm sure even Renee's probably got some interesting comments about notions of power because I think they they do relate to issues of trust and knowledge I mean the key thing is in terms of power is to simply think of it in terms of political power now it's not a coincidence that I made a reference to I know I'm not a kind of AI or digital expert at all but as a as a kind of critical observer when I look at the power of I look at the power for instance of some of the large kind of big data out there it does make me wonder when we when we when the European Commission slaps a fine on a particular company whether it makes any difference so so for me power is not not necessarily something that a politician has I think power for me also critically is not something that is possessed but it's relational now how we in the research and innovation community understand notions of power and where we fit in within this landscape is I think important and and I think I go back to that positive note of optimism in terms of you know creating a sense of community you know in parallel to having a sense of community there's also a sense of there should be a sense of power and how we use that sense of community to affect change but yeah that's really my only comment to that thank you so I think that we can like hand up this keynote in this now because come on we really like asked you several things and you were great in answering so thank you again because in this way we will have time for like distribute the audience among the two parallel sections that will happen now the first one about the lesson learned from open science and our array but Pedro has the agenda so thanks to Pedro I had to remember everything in my mind I give the floor to you for keeping like yeah okay thank you for this great session and for this welcome to our to our conference so now we will proceed with the two parallel sessions so we we advise you to please have the the program page open in your in your browser check your email because we are moving from zoom session to another zoom session so it's not easy as we have different three different slots during the day so now we are moving to two parallel sessions our idea was to have a kind of five minutes of of a break okay you can have a coffee and then you join before I'll pass the 10 the the parallel session that you you want to participate so I'm adding here to the shot also the links of both fashions that you can copy and and use to to connect so you have already in the shot the link to both parallel sessions so you can select so we have one parallel session dedicated to the two are going to to share with you the main outputs and results from fit for our eye training activities but also we want to to do it together with another project Orion open science project both we are both arising 2020 projects that have started more or less in the same time and and run in parallel our activity so I think it's interesting also to share some of our outputs and some challenges and lessons learned from this process so this session is dedicated to the training activities around our eye and open science and then another session dedicated more to ethics so influencing policymaking with ethical evidence it's also a collaboration with another european project and run iPhone fan will support will moderate will will manage this this session so join us for these two parallel sessions you can you have the the links here you also have the links in your in your email and and then the also in the web page of the event we you can also you can also access all the zoom sessions so we will close this session in one or two minutes but you are free to to close the browser and open the other the other session so stay with us don't go for other kinds of activities don't check your email problems will be solved so join us in in one or two minutes we are already opening the other rooms and we will start at half past 10 okay stay with us thank you