 Welcome all to the fall 2014 CNI Member Meeting. I'm Cliff Lynch for those of you I haven't met. I'm the Director of the Coalition and I'm really pleased to see so many people here. It looks like this is going to be record attendance as you may have noticed. We are doing a few things a little differently this year notably I will be talking with you tomorrow at length about future plans for the Coalition and related matters as I often have done in the opening plenaries recently. We have a kind of a special thing that we're going to do today but before I do that I just want to very quickly touch on a couple of logistics things. It looks hurray like the weather worked this year unlike a few other exciting previous years so I'm pretty confident that we won't see huge numbers of changes in the breakouts but there is a message board out by registration and we will reflect any changes in the scheduling of the breakouts there. I would like to take just a minute before I invite my conversationalists up to do two things. One is to welcome a number of new members and some of these members are from quite distant spots but we're very pleased to have them here. New members since our last meeting are Triangle Research Library Network, Deakin University, the University of Sydney Library, West Virginia University Libraries, the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology sometimes known as KAUST, Cal State Northridge, Louisiana State, the Public Library of Science or PLOS as many of you know it, Rowan University and the University of Alabama at Binghamton. Welcome all, delighted to have you with us. I'd also like to just take a moment to welcome the clear and the ARL fellows. CNI as with many organizations in this space shares a commitment to leadership development and also I have a very strong personal preference for not duplicating things that are already working well but trying to support them. So as part of that strategy we have been inviting them to join us in our meetings in recent years and I'm pleased to note that there is a good representation from both of those groups so as you run into them at sessions please join me in welcoming them as well. Now let me get on to the main matter at hand and invite my conversationalists to join me here. We have three wonderful people for this conversation that I'll introduce. James Hilton from the University of Michigan, Tom Kramer from Stanford and Michelle Kimpton from Doorspace. Welcome all and hopefully we will get some time to get in some of your questions towards the end of this. Let me kind of introduce and frame this very briefly. So over the past year it seems like there's been a lot of changes in the whole landscape of how we think about collectively developing and deploying software or services and it is getting harder and harder to tell them apart in some ways for a number of areas that are really critical for research and higher education. Community source and actually that's a commonly used phrase that means quite a number of different things in different settings but refers to both a sort of a development methodology a governance framework and also of course a business model in some sense has served us really well for 10-15 years. I think we can point to some very notable successes or at least successes today and it's been very common to see people launch community source projects of various kinds. All of our all of our conversationalists have been deeply involved in many of these over the years. Some things seem to be happening now. The economic model for some of those the speed of development that some of those frameworks can support looks to be getting a little shaky. We are seeing an accelerated move from do community source and run the outcome locally to various kinds of single or multi-tenant arrangements based out on hardware that exists somewhere else and is run by someone else and sometimes those multi-tenant operations are run by someone else too. Where does this leave you? As you come to the right point in the life cycle to think about library system a new institutional repository. Think about what to do next in learning management systems. How do we engage with the kinds of new instructional platforms and opportunities that things like the developments in MOOC and edX and Unizen point us at. How do you think about this space? What's gonna work and what isn't? That's what we want to explore today and we want to look at both the sort of obvious implications and some of the less obvious implications where if we guess right about how things are going to play out in the future gain a little insight about what that future is going to look like. So maybe the place I'll invite us all to start is with this whole business of community source. What is it the way you think about it and does it really have a future? I mean I think open source is clearly a different thing related but quite distinct thing from community source. I don't think anybody's predicting the end of open source but community source is a model. How do you see that changing and evolving? You want to start? Sure. So I don't think community source is going away. I think that community source for me so I do think it's actually worth making a couple of distinctions. So for a long time I think open source and community source I'm always struck by the extent to which people have a tendency to want to put things into opposition to each other. So when we started moving to talking about community source it triggered a well what's the right way to manage community source and is community the same as open source and in fact Michelle and I used to have conversations long conversations. I remember outside I was mowing one day and we had like an hour long conversation because I didn't want to mow in war too. Talking about community source and open source for a while I think open source it's always an intellectual property statement and that's not going away. But open source also is often used synonymous with a particular method of creating that code and it's typically developer autonomous centric. So if you looked at the debates that came out when Kowali was coming along compared to Sakai both open source code but very different development models and some would talk about what's pure open source and is community source pure open source and for me again open source it's best to think about it as an intellectual property statement and then the rest of it is how do you organize the labor that produces an outcome and the way I look at sort of what we've learning over the last decade is we have many more tools to tune that development for whatever outcomes you want different projects are going to have different outcomes different organizational models are going to work with them at least as an opening. Consistent with your view more or less? I would say consistent but something that has transpired over the 10 years of Dura space projects we have D space Fedora and more recently Vivo is really the tuning of the community development model so all of our projects are open source as defined by James code is open source you can download it you can use it at your institution free of charge. However if you want to collaborate and develop the code together that is really more of a community source model and I think back in the early days people felt hey it's open source it's free I'm going to use it I'm going to customize it at my institution and isn't that great because I can do exactly what I want with the code but what Matt what happened is then the code didn't advance in a collaborative fashion and so the best projects I feel are ones that have a model of transparent and inclusive collaboration across the community to go in a direction together and therefore you can advance the software together and that means you need to invest time you need to invest resources sometimes you need to invest financially and you need to be transparent about what you're doing and I feel that that has been transformational in several of the projects that we are managing. So I really like the notion of open source as a means of production in addition to a software license I also think there are many forms of community and I think one form of community is to have something that looks more like a traditional centralized organization with say project directors and functional and technical councils I think there are just as many and in some cases more exciting examples of community source where the community has really come together spent a lot of time on alignment but is in fact grassroots driven and bottom-up driven. I'm part of two major projects also part of Fedora which have really been driven I think from the edges to the core and have been very successful. So I think it's important when we talk about community sources we not just say it's a it implies one form of organization but also we recognize that there are many ways that communities can self assemble. Do you think there is any discernible trend be now taking us towards or away from the grassroots model as opposed to the people come together to fund a centralized implementation team kind of model or does is that more dependent on the kind of software in question? I don't know if there's a trend I can see successful examples I think on both sides so I think one of the things a centralized organization can often help bring clarity and focus on a way sometimes that a grant can bring clarity and focus when it's not clear I think grassroots movements can also do that well there's look at a project like Blacklight it's very clear that Blacklight is a faceted browser that sits on top of solar and provides search and discovery it does one thing it does it very well that's a very successful project and there's nothing that looks like a project director or any kind of supporting organization for that in any way. What do you see on this? So and this is not a statement of what should be this is a this is a statement of what I observe I think as the scale of the investment goes up the pressure to organize the investment and to have some control over it goes up so one of the things that I find really interesting is Michigan being one of the original homes founding homes of Sakai and in my view a huge success our learning management system is Sakai it's it's really you know I look back to a decade ago when we started it it's amazing it's done you know everything we wanted it to do and yet the previous provost and and and when we did it I remember conversations with Paul Courant who was the provost at the time that Sakai was launched and we wanted to do it really for a couple of reasons one reason was we thought we thought learning and teaching were at the epicenter of the of the institution and we wanted to stay in control right it's about control it's about decision authority staying with the community right as opposed to as opposed to at that time Blackboard at the same time the second reason for doing it was because we wanted it to be a credible threat we saw a lot of market consolidation happening in the LMS space Paul was an account is an economist Paul basically said you know if we could be a credible threat and put a check on the market that would be a good thing and it was and and the worst case would be we would try this experiment it wouldn't work and we'd go adopt whatever the thing was that was commercially out there and we would have lost a little time it's been a huge success in my view and yet the previous provost so saying that anytime you get a pride of provosts together that's the only prep I did for this was to think about that phrase when when you get a pride of provosts together some of them are going to immediately start talking about the free rider problem and Michigan's previous provost really would use Sakai as an example of a place where he felt that Michigan had invested disproportionately and hadn't gotten the value out of it so part of what I think you see is you see other kinds of community source and organizing capital come along at least part of what drives that is the scale of the investment that institutions are being asked to make right so scale is clearly one factor and that seems very plausible to me as the scale gets bigger the complexity of managing it the rate of decision-making slowing down all of that comes into play is the presence or absence of serious commercial players in the sector is that a factor in central versus grassroots kind of development as well I mean certainly we've seen instances where commercial players can bring a lot of capital and development talent to bear very quickly when they want to still I think part of that is if there is an absence of commercial players that can allow more time and space for experimentation which I think does tend to favor more of an open source or grassroots approach but I think another differentiator is product quality and I one thing about the pressure to centralize or what a vendor or commercial interest may bring to bear is how good is the product that they are and does centralization actually lead to higher quality in many cases we can see where a central authority whether it's an open source community that's been organized or a commercial provider has maybe made some missteps so even though they're there there's a lot of anxiety and a lot of pent-up appetite to strike out in a different direction so Unison is obviously a project that is trying to organize community effort to use a variety of tools to push standards particularly around content in and out content relays and around data analytic relays it's the same at some level it's the same core issue that we were focused on with Sakai on the control front how do we make sure that the Academy stays in control of our data in control of our content in control of our brand and relationships but Unison has made a decision to partner with a commercial actually not to partner to adopt commercial software and we did it in part because we wanted the speed that came with that and we and and it was contingent upon negotiating a set of contracts with that provider that gave us confidence about exit strategy and the ability to continue to take and do things with the code so the way I look at right now when I said community source gives you all kinds of tools the the thing to be doing right now is is exploring those different tools and trying to figure out which ones fit which place I think there's two different models when a commercial entity is making something open source it gives you an exit strategy which is nice but it doesn't really mean it's a community source project and that's quite different now there are open source projects that offer their project as a service software as a service and what I find particularly in the commercial space is that those projects are going at very fast to meet the needs of their customers but there's no control outside of that customer base no engagement necessarily at the same level with folks that are adopting locally that want to give code back to the project or want to influence how the code decisions are made within the project because they're really servicing the core paying customers so that can be a real tension and very different than the community source model where ideally everybody has a say because they're voting either with resources in kind of resources financially just comment on that so I think one of the areas where I've seen in community source projects have failed is when they've really been gated communities I can think of multiple examples where the elaborate governance structures and fairly well-funded projects have kind of hit the skids and partly it's because they failed to channel the interest outside the gates and channel the resources and the investments and the additional market that they might bring and I think that's also true of commercial supply to vendor supply solutions unless you can tap the bigger market and actually grow and channel those investments in I think it's going to be a problem with your commercial solution or if you're a community or a gated community so I'm just curious so because when I think about unison I think about parts of it I think about it as again if you remove the intellectual property distinction right it's very much a community organizing development effort and in unison the focus is on how do we create relays that are going to be as agnostic as possible to prove right where the community development that goes in unison is around building digital workflows that are going to allow us to leverage repositories that are out there build deposit paths in it and part of the decision was that that's where the community effort needs to be not in continuing to refine the LMS because the LMS is kind of it's there and so I just kind of be interested in how you think about that it's not a pure software so when I think about community development I don't think about it as a software problem I think about it really the way cliff started introducing it it's about a business model it's about an organizing labor and capital model it is also partly about software it's about I mean unison is mostly about system integration and building you know some software at the intersections that keep us in control so let me flip us over now and talk a little bit about the move of software from local implementations out into various forms of network hosting people like to say the cloud but really I I feel like that's a kind of an inaccurate description for what's going on in many of these cases it's going out into redundant network hosting but there's someone very clearly responsible for making sure that that's running and maintained and delivering service there seems to be particularly for large systems a big move in that direction and you know you're seeing some of the new what would have been community source clearly five years ago now taking on much stronger aspects of community service if you look at deep in it certainly has a sense of that if you look at APT that also takes on some of that character I believe that seems to be a very central idea in unison as I understand it that those things will mostly be hosted off campus how does that change the landscape here I mean even if the code is open source so you have some escape hatch if you will you're really diminishing your ability to effectively maintain it and control certain aspects of it does that take us to different kinds of governance models for example I mean it might take us to different kinds of governance models I think it it makes you ask the question what are the parts that I need to control and what are the parts that I don't and again part of that is the evolution of the stack right and so again if I use the example of unison what we're trying to focus on in unison is figuring out what parts of it do we need to keep tight control on and what parts of it do we let go and we have pretty much decided that the LMS part of it right has gotten robust enough standard enough they vary from each other a bit but they're all now core infrastructure and so like the network run it at scale go for the economy of scale and focus the control efforts on yeah always have a plan if that goes really badly but focus the control on how do we build these digital workflows how do we help humanists know where to deposit stuff or research data scientists how do we help them from within the applications that we're providing as a service how do we help them have a path to know where that stuff goes because right now nobody has a clue we have a bunch of places you can stick stuff in and and nothing that's sustainable so Michelle you've operated in an area of the world with repositories where it's very easy to think of them as hosted somewhere and certainly there are people who do that and people in that business there are also is local hosted what what trends are you seeing there yeah so and we also run a host of course direct and host of DuraCloud so I guess I would flip the problem around a little bit from what you've stated is that there are 1700 institutions that run d-space many of them locally and it is very difficult for these smaller institutions to upgrade to the latest software stack to get the additional functionality and new releases come out annually and so we Dura space wanted to provide a pathway for smaller institutions to be able to use d-space without needing to install locally we run the same exact code as the open source code if we make any changes to the code we contribute it back through the open source project process it has to be vetted by all the committers in d-space we don't just throw it in there and it gets in there so I see cloud infrastructure and I'm gonna use cloud infrastructure because it's to me it's like your electricity you know you turn it on and it works you pay for what you use you don't pay for what you don't use and I think that that is going to flip IT in academic environments on its head because it's going to be hard for IT folks to justify building out these large data centers except for their core mission critical stuff when they can buy IT as a service and only pay for what they need so I think it would be responsible for us to be able to enable the open source applications to run particularly for the smaller institutions in the cloud and also keep the same governing process the same openness so that it's apples to apples and you're not doing two different things so good yeah so I think I'll agree with both of those statements is it's running data center and installing and maintaining software if that's your poor competence that's a thing to recognize but I think increasingly we're seeing this community it's value proposition is rising up in the stacks so whether it's an LMS or I think repositories are approaching the proposition is maybe it doesn't matter where it runs what matters is you understand the services and the value it provides to your community and that's where I think a lot of focus is I I do think it's also where do you want to what are your competitive edge and where do you want to maintain a sense of control over time and I think curation in terms of assisting discovery assisting preservation this higher stack of services those are areas arguably where I think to go back to your first topic the community source is still important because it's still a moving target and this is the community that it's serving to the degree that we can keep control of that and we can continue to resource that and define the solution I think the better off we will be as as a group to the degree that we externalize that to some remote provider regardless of its nature that's a big risk so so one of the things I hear a lot these days and it's very connected to the point you just made Michelle about particularly the difficulty of smaller institutions and supporting things is a lot of this software is getting big enough and volatile enough and complicated enough and particularly in an ugly security environment where patches come out frequently and need to be put on in a fairly timely fashion simply doing maintenance and configuration management is getting to be more and more of a burden not just to little institutions but to big institutions who are tying up a good deal of resource in it does the prospect of being able to move that off to someone who presumably has great expertise in the system and nothing else to do but keep it up to date in a very timely way turn out to have a lot of appeal and making choices here because I find that a good story but then I flip it around and I think about the effort that institutions also spend doing version control and new version testing and validation which you've now put yourself at the mercy of someone else so you have but again it comes down to making sure that you stay in control of the things that you want to stay in control of and that you can that you do smart contracting I when I was the CIO at UVA I briefed the board one time they wanted a briefing on cybersecurity and and I said and I said to the president well I want to bring somebody in who can you know really give them an expert summary of it and she said no no I need you to tell them the things that you tell me that our networks are tested thousands of times a day that you know social security numbers are running all through still the system that and so the example that I used for them was I it was about three months after the Department of Defense had suffered their largest data breach in the history of the Department of Defense and it was a contractor's laptop got stolen and I think it was the plans like a hundred thousand documents associated with the F-22 or F-25 or one of those and and I just and I said to the board the question isn't whether breaches are going to happen the question is how bad is it going to be and what are the optics going to be around it and I said you know suffice to say that the Department of Defense at that time had seventy five thousand people in IT security I had four so and yeah I mean it the alternative it seems to me if you're committed to running everything yourself in the environment in the compliance environment that we're in is that is all you will do and it will it will generate revenue if what you want is an organization that's going to be funded and have people working on stuff there's going to be lots of busyness to be there but it's not it doesn't feel to me to go to the value add question where you talked about the value add it is what do we as academic institutions and as cultural memory institutions what do we bring that's unique from the rest of the stack and how do we make sure that's where our strategic development and effort goes so let me let me frame a closely related at least in my head question one of the barriers to innovation I think Michelle sort of outlined earlier is when you get everybody forking off code and doing their own adaptations locally and then you wind up with this very large number of base versions in the field you know you may have three versions current and lots of local modification my sense is that in this future that we're moving into with network based software as service that area of variation really goes down so in some sense you can diffuse new innovations much faster you're not carrying around this big burden of back compatibility and having to work across you know three versions of the the software is that do you see that as a likely outcome as we move more to the net well one is I think there we're perhaps getting better at managing that diversity or the forking I think there was a notion it's it's a quick start to use someone else's open-source platform and then just take it where you want and then the question really becomes one of maintenance and long-term sustainability and I think we've seen lots of good examples where different communities or different service providers are much better at putting as Michelle described and hands us back into the main code base I to me it that seems like a separate question and a separable question then needing to run things as software service I think that can facilitate things and that can streamline the operations but that's not the only path forward I do think the security except the separation of concerns between innovation development operations and security is also important and I think in commercial worlds as well as local data centers we're looking at being able to secure the different layers and being able to deploy innovation and changes and manage those changes in those different layers and I think the centralized services might have an advantage because they've pulled some of those things together but there's lots of us in this room also got data centers and some capacity and some talents to be able to apply to I like to comment on that so based on some trends that I'm seeing so there has been a lot of customization around both D space and Fedora and as a result then there's frustration out in the community because they've customized and now they have this big upgrade process which means it's lengthy and it takes a lot of resources and we're seeing some pushback from that we've seen people recognize that you know hey we customize this and this is the problems we've created for ourselves and we really need those customizations and really starting to understand that that whole process so part of the beauty of having more standardization is then you can really start to look and particularly this is where I like the cloud enables is you can start to look at aggregations across instances entering the cloud so for example one of the things we're looking at you know how do we push content streamline content into DPLA and do that from one cloud based environment to another cloud based environment how do we push content into deep in and be able to aggregate it through one again cloud based pipeline to another and so I think some of this network enables much bigger aggregations and gets rid of the isolated silos that have continually been a problem if people are trying to discover an access across institutions across geographies and I think that's the opportunity by having some of these trends so I the I think cloud can accelerate that and can be a factor I think we can also see examples where that's happening because what the other word you said is standardization so this notion of modularization regardless of where it's running one of the projects I'm involved in is triple IF or the international image interoperability framework and the notion isn't that you consolidate all of the world's image based resources into one big repository to get the benefits of aggregation discovery and preservation it's that you expose your image based resources through a standard API and it's really de facto standard not a capital S standard but this is just an easy way to get 80% of the functionality you need to see an image zoom in on an image cite a region of interest get sequence information and that every single repository in the world can in fact deploy this because we're baking it in at the image server level so that benefits of standardization of aggregation of interoperability may begin as another factor which is not quite community source versus network service providers I mean certainly being able to have a big multi-tenant aggregation makes it much easier to connect them to another major system because you really only have to do it in one place also if you have a big aggregated set of anything you have a better ability to influence those standards as well right I mean so standards was one of the things on my list to talk about a little from a slightly different perspective I guess I find myself wondering whether the places where standards are most applicable are changing you know for example there used to be a notion that you'd have a lot of standards that allowed you to replace very various building blocks inside a system and reconnect them up differently now you as you move into this world of highly aggregated things standards don't really matter that much in the sense that you're trying to interconnect two big aggregated things and you need to come up with a way to do that but really you know sort of well formalized and well-structured standards may may not be needed it may work just fine to be expedient about that do you do you see trends pushing in that direction so I'm not sure I I think it depends on what level of integration you're trying to go for right so at the risk of sending like a broken record I mean the standards that I want to see right now are standards for content description standards for transport standards for intellectual property and metadata you know a fairly thin amount of stuff that goes on it that would bake it open to all kinds of systems in terms of discoverability right and control how far into it how modular like when you're when you're connecting two big things if you're just connecting them and they're going to run essentially self-contained except passing a bit of stuff behind I don't know how much focus I don't know what that does to standards I would say the other challenge is how you move standards at the pace that the technology runs so how do you so again with unison the phrase that we keep using is we're going to be a standards-based as possible and we'll do reference implementations where the standards lag and we're going to hope that by picking a commercial partner to help with that it's going to help push those standards through and if not will redo as the standards catch up so presumably just to pick on unison as a case in point you've decided to build on top of common learning management system as a point of departure so I wouldn't say we're building on top of it I would say that unison is about system integration in the first system that we're integrating is the LMS with content repositories and analytics repositories it really is more about system integration and the focus on standards is at those integration points we're not we're not going to try to influence we're going to try to influence in structure canvas's parent company to the extent that we can around standards we're not really that focused on influencing in structure on the direction of the LMS again because we think the LMS is relatively mature at this point and that's not where the action is that we need to focus attention but do you foresee a time in the near future where someone with another LMS might be able to absolutely come in the common interface yeah in fact not only do I see it that's I mean that's the goal right you want to create a loosely coupled environment in which you can swap out LMS's you can connect repositories you can swap out learning analytics frameworks if you want to that's the goal what do you see in this area you work across a very wide range of things from kind of fundamental tools like the image framework to a number of much higher level applications I think James has got the right recipe in terms of loose coupling I mean I think there's definitely a role for standards based on how big is the pool that you want to swim in with a recognition that libraries are one part of a much much larger ecosystem the notion that we can agree on something whether it's a formal standard or not is maybe a limiting notion and if you want to think of things that the W3C scale or how do we work with link data these are things that whether it's a de facto standard or formal standard there is a very important community of practice and loose and loose coupling principle based architecture that needs to go in place I mean I think even within our community look at the number of people who've converged on an index or solar as an indexing technique if you want to do search and accepted practices to use solar there's also elastic so there's maybe two approaches solar and elastic search the number of people who can use any variety of repository service and have already used solar means we've basically converged on a common component that can swap in swap out we've gained a lot of flexibility we've seen people Fedora d space Hydra Island aura all use this as a key component they pulled their resources in many cases we're using the same search interface even though we've got very different backends let me ask one more question and then I'm going to open it up for some questions from the audience one of the things I really puzzle about a good deal in as I look at the changing environment is how patterns of innovation and diffusion of innovation change you know we've talked about community source projects that really come from the grassroots and where there's a considerable amount of expertise at a technical level distributed around the number of contributing and participating institutions if we really think about moving to collective service based things does that start to put us towards a environment where we get local technical expertise turning out to be a good deal scarcer and we see concentrations around the sort of platform operator and develop you know central development team that maybe can innovate fast and diffuse it fast but maybe also innovate less diversely than some of the things we've done in the past I realize that is a very speculative framing but I'd really be interested in your views on that go ahead so I mean as you were as you were discussing it I was going right so innovation moves up the stack I mean part of the reason why we're why at Michigan part of the argument that I make and why we should go after unison is because it is still about staying in control of our content and our data and everything but it's also because I don't actually want the next decade to be another decade spent tweaking LMS's right we sit on we sit on a platform of residential education that's mostly unchanged for centuries and I don't think that's going to survive the next 20 years unchanged I think residential education is going to thrive but I think you know I used to teach I always use this example I used to teach a class of 1200 students I felt like the fastest telegraph operator on the planet and and there was a phone ringing in the corner and I went you know this gift that we have so at a research university the gift that we have of being in a common place at a common time with a real physical environment about us and a shared commitment to the discovery of that which we don't know yet I have to believe there are better ways to take advantage of that gift than sitting in class in a lecture and so if it helps push so I do worry a little bit about the loss framing that you've got that we're going to lose technical expertise but if we can move the interest in innovation up the stack life gets better you agree yeah I'll agree with that the I don't I when you I think it depends on what you mean by technical expertise I don't think you need to know how to run a server to have technical expertise I also think that you can't pay someone to think for you well you can but that may be dumb usually ends badly yeah maybe that's the consulting industry says something about that the I think what whether it's a network-based service or whether it's community source I think the successful solutions will figure out how to tap the creativity and the innovation that is coming from the edges I think that's going to be essential I think a good I like your last question a lot because I think it speaks to there's a phrase in open source communities is be the community that you want to be and I think we can talk about being the institutions we want to be do we want to outsource innovation and become really good at vendor management and buying and selling and contracting or do we feel like we have some fundamental role in constructing these knowledge ecosystems different people may have different answers yeah yeah I mean you can look back and see examples of this in different areas you know one of the most prominent ones being networking where you know there was a time when there was hugely deep knowledge of large-scale global networking on many many campuses and now that's held in largely in a few central organizations we haven't completely lost knowledge of it in the research and higher ed community but we've certainly concentrated it heavily and that may be one outcome here for certain things I don't know do you buy this so I would just bring on one maybe parallel point and and this is just looking out in the broader scope I mean I think that if the developer can just focus on developing and not have to worry about setting up the server and talking to the IT personnel and figuring how to connect it to the network it actually increases innovation because they've removed many barriers for being able to write some code and get it out there and throw it on a hosted server typically cloud-based for very little dollars and seeing if it works and so I think there again an opportunity to increase innovation ideas because the capital cost to get that innovation up and running is so much lower and I think even the commercial space that's why you see many cloud-based services spawning all over the place because it's such a low barrier to entry and I think the same could apply to academia as well I am afraid that while we could continue this for quite some time we are just about at the end of our allotted time I thank you for sharing your expertise and insights on this I hope for you that this has helped somewhat to clear up some of the things that are happening out in the landscape and also given you some sort of vectors to watch as things go forward and further develop please join me in thanking our