 Hi, everyone. I am standing between you and lunch and between you and cake, so this is an uncomfortable space. But I wanted to, first of all, take the opportunity to thank you for having me back. It was about a year ago, I think, that I was able to come join you and talk a little bit about my work at the foundation. And that was like, I don't know, maybe three months or so after I joined, even less. So I roughly didn't know what I was doing, like who anybody was. So hopefully this year you're going to get a bit more sense out of me. Not too much, but a little bit more. So what I'm going to do today is certainly reflect a little bit on where we were a year ago and what we are now, and also tell you a little bit about what's happened this past year at the foundation and how our plans have evolved. So I'll try and be quick. Hopefully there'll be time for questions. I'm planning on staying around for another hour or so after my presentation, so we can chat offline as well if anybody has any questions. So first of all, reflecting on the past year, I'm going to say that Cindy Ciccalezzi is now on the other side of the fence. So we actually have, for the first time ever, a bona fide product manager for Media Weekly. Yay. Huge difference as we begin really to look at what the foundation does with a broader vision, not just an encyclopedia, but much more than that. So this past year, the foundation has been a year of strategy making, we have many new people, including a new executive director at the foundation and also a board that has evolved a great deal from the recent past. So one of the things that we asked ourselves is like, what are we all about? What should we be doing? We had a strategy that saw us through to the year 2015 roughly and it was time to take another look and see what we're going to take, the movement, the foundation, what we should be doing to be responsive to the needs of our movement. So we spend a year, roughly, figuring out what our strategy should be. And you may think a year, really, yeah, because the foundation really represents a movement and we had a very, very broad consultation exercise with just about everybody who could speak to inside and outside the movement. So at the end of that year, we came up with a strategic direction that I want to share with you here and then I'm going to tell you what we're doing in order to start moving ourselves in that direction. So our mission at the foundation is, as you know, the spread of free knowledge to all human beings. We want to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our goal. And for the most part, I think if you look back at the first 15 or so years of the foundation and the movement, we've not done too badly. When you look at the achievements of the community, they are quite spectacular. The encyclopedias are present in around about 300 languages. There are over 45 million articles. And when you look at the edits, they're in the billions. So we have clearly an active and thriving community of both volunteers, as well as committed employees that are bringing all this together. So if that's where you are, where do you go to next? So this past year, as I said, was a year of reflection with all these great achievements. We also found out that we have gaps. And I'll talk through some of these gaps real quick. First of all, there is a much larger ecosystem than the one that we either recognize or actively or properly or engage well with. And frankly, the fact that I come here once a year, that you guys don't see the foundation in the day-to-day lives more frequently than that is an example of such a gap. There's a larger ecosystem that we are part of that includes not only our donors and our readers and the committee of projects, but there are fellow travelers both in the knowledge, in the free knowledge world, as well as the creative community, as well as other tech companies, social development organizations. And of course, organizations like this that leverage technology that we use, that we build and use for our own purposes, but then also give back so that, you know, we're together we are better. So clearly we need to learn how to work better with the broader free country movement. And, you know, I hope honestly to kind of be able to stand here a year from now and tell you exactly what we've done in that regard to begin to create and to craft a more substantive and productive relationship with groups like the Enterprise Media Wiki group. So that's one thing we need to fix. What else is changing the world around us? Well, one of the things that's going to change and is changing is how the world population is distributed. So if you look forward to 2030, there will be roughly 13% more people than we have today, but all this growth really is going to be in Africa and Africa and Asia. And the implication really for this is that we need to be able to adjust and be present in this new context, new languages, and also knowledge formats. And while languages perhaps is obvious, but knowledge formats may not be, you know, we are very thoughtful about what knowledge even means, you know, is knowledge in encyclopedia, is knowledge of what sits, for example, inside of a NASA Wiki that tells people how to use a space station, is knowledge of what lives within an ESA set of documentation that tells you how to observe quality management processes. Yeah, you bet, all of the above. And we at the Foundation don't really spend too much time thinking about these different knowledge formats. And, you know, one thing I know is as you move, you feel the vision to a broader set, including, say, Africa, the knowledge formats that they will need to use to create and also benefit from are going to be very different than what we have today. So we need to think about that as we ready ourselves for the next 15 years. The other thing that is pretty obvious and, you know, all we have to do is look at ourselves in this room. The gender gap remains and it remains not only in the contributors to our technology foundation, which is maybe like not that surprising, but unfortunately is also very, very prevalent in our encyclopedia contributor base, which means, of course, that we have significant biases in our corpus, which is not great because we, you know, being as successful as we are and we are successful with the world's number five website, it means that we propagate these biases downstream and we propagate them by sharing that knowledge, but we also propagate them because our corpus is used and reused endlessly by other organizations that train their machine learning models on us, which also, you know, creates the opportunity for those biases to be force multiplied and have them cause even more harm. So another thing that we need to think about as we ready ourselves for the, again for the journey ahead is how do we respond to this gender gap? What do we do to begin to be a more inclusive and more diverse community? And perhaps the final gap and I'm sure there are many more, but the final gap that we thought about is mobile. And, you know, I feel honestly fairly ridiculous standing in front of you here saying we're not good at mobile and look at that picture. I mean, we're not good at mobile. So this is what you see in red there is the number of edits that are done in the various wikis on mobile devices versus desktop. So, you know, we are by far a kind of laptop desktop bound community of contributors. And in reality is, I mean, it's not just the next generation, everybody is mobile today. So, you know, we are excluding a great deal of contributions from our products by not being present, well, but not being effectively present in the mobile space. And certainly as we look at our aspirations, you know, to grow in what we broadly call the global south, you know, we know that many of these people will come to us through broadband, they will come to us through mobile. They will never have an internet connection in their house, any more than they have a telephone connection in their house. So if we don't solve this problem, we will also exclude them from the movement. So this is something that we also need to work on. So, you know, as I say, there are many more gaps that we have, but in our minds these are, you know, some of the most critical fundamental things that we need to be thinking about as we begin to ready ourselves for the journey. So, what did we hear from our communities? What's our direction? So we heard that we are an infrastructure for many things. We're not just an encyclopedia. And again, you know, looking at all of you here, I can put a face to this statement. We are, you know, in many ways the infrastructure of open knowledge. So we're going to be a platform to serve open knowledge and we want ourselves to be deliberate about it, not like, you know, rely on heroic efforts by a few people to make that true. But we're going to be very deliberate in how we're supported by building tools for ourselves, our allies and our partners. And also we're going to do that by enabling the use of new forms of knowledge, as I was saying earlier. So that's one piece of our strategic direction. The other one that is truly meaningful to us also is knowledge equity. And by that we mean that we want to focus on knowledge and the communities that are left out by structures of power and privilege. We're going to welcome people from every background. And also we're going to work to break down barriers to access and sharing knowledge. And again, if you reflect on the mobile conversation we've just been having, you can see what significant barriers exist in communities that are not privileged in accessing our information if we don't, for example, have a workable way for them to use mobile devices to come to us. So these are the two key directions that we decided we need to march towards in order to build out the movement for the next 15 years. Knowledge as a service and knowledge equity. So we have truly a lot of work ahead of us. And honestly, even if it wasn't for our new direction, we would have a great deal of work ahead of us. I just stopped myself from using a cash word then. I was going to say something a bit more salty than what I said. But we have a lot of work to do. So when I squint and I look at the future, I don't know exactly what we'll be doing in the next 15 years. But there are four areas where I know we're going to have to make progress in order to move forward. And these are broad areas where we know we're going to have to do a lot more thinking and planning around in order to figure out the final plan. So first of all, looking at our infrastructure. And by infrastructure, I don't just mean the physical plant, but also I saw for our people infrastructure. We need to make some choices about our stack. And I know Cindy spoke to you earlier in the conference about the plans that we have to evolve our platform. This is going to be one of the most significant efforts that we undertake in the foundation this year. Fixing once and for all many of the gaps that we have. And then getting ourselves to the place where we don't have to do heroics in order to catch up. Like fixing some of the big things that went wrong in the past and then making sure that we keep up. So that's one big thing. We're going to work on tech foundation from mobile. And again, if you ask me, what does that mean? I don't know what it means today, but I do know it's something that we have to work on and fix. I know that we'll have to scale because if our ambition is to reach the next billion, how are we going to do that? Are our structures even fairly mundane things like our data centers? Are they able to take us where we need to go? There are also pieces that are perhaps not as obvious. Our ambition to operate in north parts of the world also implies that oftentimes we have to serve communities that are at risk. For example, you probably know that Wikipedia, in fact, all of the Wikipedia projects have been blocked in Turkey for over a year now. There are many other communities where this is the case. And our commitment is to every human being. It's not to every human being that lives in Europe. So we need also to make sure that we figure out some solutions to make it possible for people in those geographies to enjoy free knowledge. And one of the things that Dave is trying in the back there has been working on is an offline version of Wikipedia. I'm sure you had an opportunity to speak to him about it already. It's an example of the kind of work that we're going to do in that regard. So there will be a whole bunch of work around infrastructure. The other pillar of our strategy from a the technology perspective is open source. And I just wanted here to reiterate our commitment to open source. We will always, always, always, always make sure that the code that we build is openly available to others. And we don't do that for the goodness of our heart. We do that because it's strategic for us. And it's strategic for us because only 78% of core commits come from staff. The rest comes from communities like yours. So we benefit a great deal by supporting the open source movement. It's also is fundamental for us again, serving our communities in the global south. The foundation is not going to be able to go and put engineers in Kenya. We're going to have to have a community in Kenya that picks up the open source tools that we build and adapt them to their own circumstances so they can build their own wickets into the work that they need to do. Also, you know, within the foundation there's been a kind of a debate for, I want to say the last five years around media wiki, you know, the monolith and services and node. And again, as Cindy probably already told you, we are committed to media wiki. And we're committed to media wiki because honestly, we have to. I mean, you may dream big dreams but like 99% of our traffic, both mobile web and desktop, I serve through media wiki. So, you know, it's the lifeblood of our mission. I also, you know, like to remind my engineers that, you know, it's kind of cool to work on new things like node. But we're here first and foremost for our mission. Plus it's like other things are cool too. You can do services in other languages. So it's not like this exalted state that if you're really, really good and you go to heaven, but all you have to do is speak Node.js. I bet you there's cobalt hiding somewhere in heaven. So it's like, so open source is like a, or hell maybe, should I say hell? Maybe it's hell. Maybe the cobalt is like, or purgatory, or some place there. So building infrastructure, maintaining our commitment to open source, then enabling technologies. A lot of the things that we're going to do in order, for example, to force multiply the productivity of our contributors would be around building capabilities and tools that are powered by machine learning. So technologies like machine learning, natural language processing, content translation, recommendations, personalization, accessibility in general. Suppose that you have somebody who, you know, we cannot see. So having spoken interfaces, for example, we know that all that is in the future. And these are areas where we'll have very, very modest investments in the foundation today. So we know that we'll have to do something more in that regard. And the last pillar here is community. Again, you know, I find it incomprehensible that we would ever succeed in our mission, minus our technical community both inside and outside the foundation. So we're going to do everything we can to strengthen this technical community and also get them to the tools that they need in order to be ready for the mission ahead. So we're going to be more diverse and more inclusive. We also want to build strategies around the role of third-party users like yourselves. And also, you know, what companies should we be working with to create some of the technologies that we need to support the mission. And I mentioned machine learning a moment ago. You know, we have like 1.85 people, 1.85 people at the foundation working on machine learning today. That's it. Where the world's number five website. We have 1.85 people. I'd like to have more. And probably I can have five. I'm never going to be at the place where the Google, so the Facebook, so the IBMs, or the Microsoft that were last. So, you know, for us, it's fundamental to build partnerships with these people so that we can reuse technologies that they have and also influence to the extent that we can, the tools that they build so that we can bring them back into our toolkit. So these are kind of the four broad areas that as we started thinking about what the strategy means for us, I was contemplating. This is the time of year that we do our annual plan. So it's time to get started. So I wanted to give you a little bit of an insight into the kinds of things that we'll be doing this next year to move us in that direction. So here's the big picture of how we're going to do this. And it's kind of, for us, it's going to be a bit of a departure because we've always in the past plan on strictly on the year cycle. The way the foundation works is we do our plan, our fundraising team goes off and does the amazing work that they do. And again, with the benefit of brilliant people like David's trying, every year they seem to be able to raise the funds that we need. We spend those funds and then we start over again. Well, now it's going to be a little different because we're actually going to plan a bit more long term. So what we're going to be able to do is plan not only for this coming year, but also for the next three to five years. And for us, it's going to be a little change in cadence. We don't know how to do that. We know how to plan on an annual basis, but we don't know how to do it more broadly. So we're trying to be very thoughtful about how all that's going to come together. So as we look at the big picture, like I said, we spent this past year figuring out what the strategy are to be. This year, 18, 19, and our fiscal year starts in July. This is going to be a transition year. So we know roughly what we need to head to. Every organization within the foundation is looking at its work and trying to figure out what do they need to do in order to start leaning in into that direction. We know that we can't move immediately, but we know how to lean in. And then once we have that done, the first year of the implementation of the strategy proper is going to be 1920. So what's going to happen this year is once we're done with our annual plan, which is kind of ongoing as we speak, as soon as we finish with that, then we're going to shift gears and start thinking about what the three to five year horizon needs to look like. And that's going to be kind of exciting and scary and unbounded because, again, we've never done it before, but it will be, I'm sure, a lot of fun. So as we started doing our plan for this year, our year zero, our goal is to tend to the basics. And I'll talk about some of the work that we'll have to do to make sure that before we kind of dream big dreams, it's like we need to first of all make sure that we have a solid foundation to build on. And I just wanted to give you just a little bit of a taste of what I'm talking about here. So the foundation, for the longest time, I did not have a great deal of engineering leadership, I want to say. And what that means is that really there was precious little attention paid to some of the fundamentals. And what's really happened over the years is that if you take, for example, our tech ops team, they're pretty much the same size as they were when we got started back in 1809. But if you look what happened to the budget of the foundation, it has climbed, which is great. And that climbing budget also meant that other parts of the foundation, including engineering, have also grown. So the line at the bottom shows you the growth of, the blue line is the growth of staff. The red line is the growth of engineering at the foundation. Now, if you are Mark Bergzema and your job is to support everything that people build and give you to support, you're sitting there with the same people 10 years on, and now you have two or three times as many engineers building things and dropping them on your plate. And all you can do is try harder to support them all. There's been virtually no investment in our capacity to support all these good things that these new engineers build and throw over the fence. So we have very significant gaps. And I don't want to go through all this miserable list here, but things like doing data backups. You would have thought, for example, like we have exquisite backups of our visions, and we do have backups. But I tell you that the percentage of backup jobs that succeed is not where I would like it to be. It's not where we would like it to be. I mean, things like, we have like two data centers. So you would imagine that we can serve traffic out of both. So one goes down, use the other. Or if we have too much traffic on one, we can all balance with the other. Well, not so much. No. Actually, we have two data centers. Only one of them is active at any given time. And if we need to switch traffic, we have to do some manually. So the world is number five website. That's not really what you're going to be. So there is a whole bunch of fundamental things like, we don't have a staging environment. So our engineers are in the position of doing whatever testing they can do, and then they throw their changes to the whole of our traffic. And again, for the scale that we have, that is totally unacceptable. And you may think, how the hell did you get here? I apologize for the salty language. And I don't know how you get to this point. I think somebody wasn't paying attention. But we are where we are. So again, from my perspective, even though I would love to start doing lots of work around machine learning and building out capability in enabling technologies and so on, I know that the first thing I would need to do is fix this gap so that we can continue operating as we grow. So this is the kind of the first priority. And hopefully some of that is reflected in our programs for this coming year. So this is a bit of a night chart and I don't expect you to read it all. But I wanted to give you a sense for what our work and the technology department looks like. So we have a whole bunch of programs. All the work that we have is programmatic. In other words, every single piece of work that we do contributes to the mission in some obvious and defensible way. And our programs come in four flavors. So we have foundational programs and these are all about building the core platforms that we need in order to get our work done. So any work that we do, for example, in media, we give it fall in this category. Then we have sustaining programs and these are all about operating the infrastructure that we have. Then we have programs for supporting our community. A lot of the work that we do in this space is really forward-looking, understanding how communities work, experimenting with new tools that we could give them, for example, to increase the capacity of editors to both write articles, also to check revisions to articles and so on. And then the last kind of packet is work that we do to support the technical community inside and outside the foundation. So this is broadly how it comes together and you won't be surprised to see on the pie chart on the left there that most of the work that we do is in the sustaining category, certainly for this coming year. Hopefully as we begin to redress some of these gaps, we can also redress that balance and perhaps do more work on our platforms. I would love to do more work on both our platforms as well as our communities. Now, I want to like to do a quick run-through, do a little bit of a deep dive in some of these programs to give you a flavor of what we will be working on. And I want to start by talking about our two top growth priorities and the first one is addressing the infrastructure gaps that I talked about just now. And the second one is to support the evolution of our platform in order to fix this divergence of the WMF stack. And again, I'm sure Cindy spoke to you about this already, but you know, we're at a situation where we'll have two APIs to maintain, we'll have two parsers that we'll have to maintain, and like you know, I could go on and on. And you know, we don't have the time or the resources to be doing that. We'll pay a very heavy tax for that kind of divergence. Here's a quick tour of some of our programs now. So the foundation will have programs that are executed in one department, in which case here you will see them as labeled as TPs. We also have programs that we execute in collaboration with other departments in the foundation. Those are called cross-departmental programs, CDPs. So we have one such program this year and we'll continue it next year on privacy, security and data management. And this is something that we're doing in collaboration with our legal team. This year we'll be expanding our team. And we have a very brave soldier here, and Brian, that is part of that team. Hopefully he will get some buddies to work with this coming year. So we want to be able to do things like provide a consistent and stable level privacy in all products. This is becoming more and more important for us. As some of you know, we shoot the NSA for privacy in the upstream surveillance that they have been doing. We also want to comply with upcoming legislation in Europe, GDPR. Some of you from Europe will be very familiar with this. It's something that will be kind of really fundamental for us to get right. And I know it's something that also you probably as users of media and wikis in general are thinking about. That's something that we have within our sites that this team will be working on. And in general, we want to be able to build our capability and our capacity around incident response, threat modeling, our ability to do code reviews and so on. So this is an important foundational piece of work that we're going to be doing. Oh, look at that. Okay, somebody did this slide. That's fun. The second one is platform evolution. And this is work that we're doing with our audiences department who used to be the product organization. So they're responsible for building or user-facing features. A lot of work will happen here. Again, Cindy talked about this already, but you know, some of the highlights are that we're going to have a new API team and a new documentation team. And that, I think, is great news for those that use our APIs and also those that want to use our code because all of a sudden actually you will have some documentation to look at. So hopefully this will fix things like fragmentation, maintenance burden, developer impedance. You know, can you imagine what it's like when you bring a new person in that's never looked at this code? I mean, it takes many, many months for them to get up to speed. So hopefully, we'll address that. And our third CDP is around knowledge integrity. And this is, again, a fundamental piece of work for us for whatever reason Wikipedia is seen as a fairly independent and reliable source of knowledge on the web by many people. I don't know if you kept up the news, but only this past week YouTube decided to put links in their videos that contain conspiracy theories to Wikipedia so that there is an alternative point of view to those that are taken by conspiracy theories. Facebook did something similar about six months ago, which is all to say that there is no better solution today. People come to us to verify knowledge. So this notion of knowledge integrity, how to make sure that one piece of, one-on-one claims supported by evidence and by citations and how they're all linked so you cannot be saying one thing over here and another thing over there is pretty fundamental. So we're going to start, we're going to get started this year with doing some research to understand how our readers access sources and also to help contributors improve the quality of their citations. We're going to do some work around our infrastructure, primarily to create tools that link information to external sources, catalogs and repositories. Also preservation is really important, so we're working with the Internet Archive to make sure, for example, that we minimize the number of dead links in our articles. We will be doing outreach to work with others that have similar objectives and then also want to raise awareness of the processes that our Wikimedians follow in order to verify information. And then I'm going to run through again very quick through some of our programs, so there will be a whole lot of work being done under TPN on reliability performance and maintenance. This includes hiring an engineer to support media Wiki related incidents, which we don't have today. In fact, I don't know if this was the case last year when I was here, but when I arrived at the foundation, there wasn't even a media Wiki team, which is pretty remarkable. So we'll now have a small team and Cindy is part of it and we will be growing that team. We'll be doing work around cleaning up our deployment pipeline and this is, you know, both to accelerate deployment of code production but also to solve the stage and problem that I mentioned earlier. So I'm very excited that we will be seeing some of the fruits of this work that actually started last year come into effect. Another little thing that we have to do this year is migrate our runtime back to PHP 7 because Google decided to stop supporting PHP in the HHVM space, so this was a bit of a curveball, but we will respond to it. We will work to address our infrastructure gaps, a whole bunch of work that will need to be done here all the way from having a proper login infrastructure to having proper backups to having a proper staging environment. We'll do some work around developer productivity because you'll be surprised to hear, I was surprised to hear all the tools that our developers use internally, they're all been developer volunteers. It's like a single tool that was professionally developed and that creates a great deal of delay and friction and deployment of code. Code health, we started a program last year to begin to tackle tech debt and we'll continue doing it this year by focusing on simplicity, testability, buildability and readability of our code. This is the last thing I wanted to talk about here, technical community. It's interesting that when I go to the foundation, people were talking about three audiences, one of them being ad owners and it's kind of obvious. The other one is our readers and the third one is our contributors, folks that go and edit. Guess what's missing? There's a vertical that's missing here which is developers. So like what happened with that? Well, somebody wasn't paying attention. So we have really an audience that is not currently served. It's our intention to start building a fully fledged technical engagement team. We will not be able to make all the investments that we need to make in that this coming year, but we're going to get started and we'll continue building it out in the out years. And that really is fully consistent with our strategy. So remember I talked about knowledge as a service has been one of the key tenets of our work and this is text that I've taken right out of the strategy. So we say we will build tools for allies and partners to organize and exchange free knowledge beyond Wikimedia. Well, like you can't do that if you don't have a dedicated team to do it. The other part about knowledge equity, we want to be able to break down the social, political and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge. And again, how are you going to do that if you don't have an organization that is focused on creating and enabling a support in that community? So the goals of our kind of budding audience here and our technical engagement audience will be to reduce barriers to technical attribution. We will focus to start with on contributors that are creating bots and tools. We're going to be able to attract and retain contributors to our flash projects. And also we want to promote the use of software resources that extend the user experience beyond that provided by the core software. We want to support the use of Wikimedia services by foundation staff, community members and third party consumers. We want to accelerate the onboarding process for new technical contributors and we want to support the technical engagement with open knowledge producers and consumers by foundation teams. So this is a whole bunch of work. So when you begin to look at what this team will have to look like, I think now we're like maybe one quarter staffed. So there's going to be a lot more resource that we'll need to procure and apply to it. But I am completely kind of dedicated and determined that this will be one of the areas that we will be seeing significant growth in in the out years. So stay tuned on that one. We may well come back to you to ask for your input, for your advice, for your wish lists as we go forward. And with that I wanted to bring it to an end and see if there are any questions about anything that I spoke about. Thank you very much for that. The knowledge integrity I'm very interested in because infuriatingly, if you're writing a paper you're not allowed to reference Wikipedia, they're absolutely strict on that. And actually a lot of times I think it's more of a reliable source than some scientific papers in terms of the collaboration that's gone into it and the referencing. And it seems a real shame that there's no way of sort of looking at the articles and going, actually that is suitable to be referenced. Is there any thoughts on that? Yes, plenty. First of all I understand why our content is highly variable. The areas of it that honestly are better than any textbook university level it would be and there are others that are not. So I think for us to become sightable resources would have to be pretty uniform with the quality of what we have. And honestly I don't know that we're ever going to be that because the whole point about Wikipedia is that you start with something that is a seed and then others come together and make it better. So maybe there's some way of creating a grading scheme on articles and maybe some of them, maybe they're five stars and they are corable and so on. I don't know. But what I do know is that, and this is my experience as a researcher, so I started life as an academic, I used to publish papers, it's linking knowledge that really matters. So knowledge is integrated to flows out of not necessarily peer review because you can easily have a peer review article that is full of inaccuracies and we all know that that happens. It's actually the ability to link that piece of knowledge with other related pieces of knowledge. So one of the things that we will be looking at, a great deal as we get started this year is this notion of linked knowledge. In fact, just earlier on I was looking at the first deck that our product manager is beginning to put on that. And that I think there's something really fundamental in that. So there's a web of knowledge out there where one thing is implied by the next and so on. So my vision is that we have a kind of a collection of linked knowledge that where the connections really represent the relationship between the different pieces. And if there's something, if you can start from node A on the graph and reach the terminal, all that means that argument is consistent. And I know this is not a vision that will be realized in a year or two, but I think that's what we want to aim for. I will also say that sometimes knowledge integrity is in the eyes of the beholder. So I recently joined the board of directors of PLOS, the Popularity of Science, which as you know in and of itself is creating a very different way of publishing where the bar is about sound science versus necessarily peer-reviewed science. So I think broadly there is a movement to really comprehend what the internet and connectedness has given us in terms of knowledge, which transcends the Elseviers and the journals of the world so far. So I think I can stay tuned. I think this is a very, very important piece of work that we have to do. There was an area that you haven't discussed and maybe it's outside the scope of that, but it occurred to me that if you're looking at the foundation for free knowledge, that there are organizations that actually make paid for knowledge become free. And the one that's most immediate is the public library. And the public library basically buys books and makes them freely available to people. But it's also happening on the electronic content. And I wondered if you had looked at this whole distribution of paid for content. In other words, all the current periodicals are all online. They're all produced in electronic form. They're not available immediately. They're behind the payroll though. On the internet. But you can actually go to your public library and you can get a subscription to this service, a free subscription to this service that you can get from home. And it's very limited. But this is the sort of transition that says, wait a minute, now all this information that's edited and published in Time Magazine, it's all available. It's all out there. But it's not freely available. It's bounded in many cases by copyright rules. In cases where it's bounded by copyright rules, in some cases where copyright is more friendly, organizations like the Internet Archive actually do precisely that. So they have a list of books and I've seen them, I've seen the machine that they use in order to digitize that content. So I think there is definitely a movement in that regard. We at the Foundation have worked really hard this past year on liberating citations. So something like 46% or something growth and the overall number of citations that can be made available openly has happened. I think there's a movement. And again, the plus, the public library of science is an example of people coming together and saying this old model doesn't serve us well anymore. Yes. But it seems there's a transition happening there that could suddenly make a huge amount of knowledge available, which is quality knowledge has never been made freely onto the Internet. And you want to be able to be there to catch it, right? When the speaker opens up on the scale of the infrastructure, you can actually grab it. And the copyrights are quite tricky because the copyrights are often geographical area. So they get a copyright to distribute in the United States. And then you look at the Internet mechanisms and can you actually control that in order to meet the copyright? And of course you cannot, as you know. If there's a way of doing that. There is a way of doing this. And it depends on how you distribute the access to the service. And one of them is through the public library. And the public library issues the grant to the person as long as they live in the United States. And it can be done through the U.S. public libraries. And that's how they meet the copyright. So I completely agree with you. And as I was saying, one of the things that we have to explore is partnerships with institutions like that. Because there's a much broader ecosystem around free knowledge that we don't work with today and we should because that will further the mission significantly. Question back there? Both the philosophy of the Wikimedia Foundation and the nature of media Wiki as a tool are consistent with the sustainable development goals that were announced by the United Nations a couple of years ago. Is there any conscious emphasis within the foundation of what can be done to advance or at least support progress to those goals? So you know there's this saying that the tide goes out and sometimes your pants are down. So this is all the situations. I don't know what these initiatives are. So if anybody send it, do you know anything about that? The sustainable development goals of the United Nations? I am not familiar or aware. Again, I will say what I said earlier. There are significant gaps in our understanding of the free knowledge ecosystem and how to best work with it. And I will put this in that category. Thank you for pointing it out. Even if you're doing things as a foundation that really are consistent with that. How does Wiki data fit into the Wikimedia Foundation goals? So Wiki data is one of our most important projects. It has been growing very very quickly. And actually one of the kind of strategies that we're working on as we speak more or less is what should the strategy be for Wiki data? Because it's been around for about five years. Some people will say it's getting to be ready to graduate. And the question is what job will it do? So will it be there primarily to support the encyclopedias? Will it be there to support institutions? Will it be there to provide APIs for others? Will it even be there to provide services on those APIs for others to use? And honestly we don't know the answer to that. What we're doing is continuing to involve Wiki data and the structures underneath it as part of a grant that we received from the Sloan Foundation called Structure Data Uncommon. So we're trying to marry Wiki data with Commons. So we're doing that fundamental work. And in the meantime we're also trying to figure out this more strategic question about what do we expect Wiki data to do? Because one of the most obvious things is that one of the most obvious questions is that of sustainability. So Wiki data is of course its own very vibrant community, but it is funded virtually exclusively out of Wikipedia proceeds. And one of the questions that of course you have to think about is if that is the case should the primary beneficiary of the Wiki data product be the encyclopedia? And if that's the case then the next thing that you have to think about is how does that work with the community of contributors that are putting together Wikipedia? So it's a complicated question, but it's very much something that we are really all over at this point. Both Wiki data and also I want to say Wiki base because I talked earlier about linked knowledge and we'll look at Wiki base as really the foundation around which we can start building this kind of knowledge web if you like. So you mentioned some of the technical changes coming forward and like the change back from HHVM to PHP7 or I know Kubernetes was up there on the slides and lots of businesses either have their business relying on MediaWiki as a core of their platform technologically. Of course there's consultants, of course there's other third parties who are trying to keep up to date with MediaWiki evolving over time. What would you say is the best way to gain visibility into those changes and also to have a voice into those in that direction? That's an excellent question and one that I would pant over to Cindy and not put Cindy on the spot but this is precisely why we have a product manager and a product manager that we're going to pick because she had very strong links with this community. So we're going to make sure that what you think what you need is represented as we figure out a roadmap so please be vocal and I think Cindy is the right kind of point of contact for all this but also it behooves us to communicate back to you because I don't know how much of the work that we do is visible to you through the year. I mean I'm sure it's nice to see me once a year but you know you need don't stop in the interim and that's you know that's part of the outreach that we want to do with this technical engagement team right so and also like so they want to engage but what are they going to engage with? One of the kind of key outputs of the platform evolution, CDP will be producing documentation and keeping it up to make sure that you know people that rely on our on our code base are actually served as well as we are and again you know we're not doing this out of the goodness of our hearts we're doing this because you know that community makes significant contributions back in the code base that we leverage so we know we don't have to hire another 20 30 engineers. Did you want to say something Cindy? Basically well first of all yes what you said absolutely and I think I've said this before several times this this week I've said it in previous meetings like this absolutely I'm here available for everybody for bi-directional communication both you know to the foundation as well as back I participate we've I don't know if we've talked enough about the media wiki stakeholders group this week but I participate actively in the media wiki stakeholders group we have a monthly telecon where we get together we talk about these issues and others and absolutely feel free anybody to reach out to me personally at any time with any questions any comments any feedback any desires and I'm here for you all as and I understand the domain that you're working in and the constraints of it and it is my goal as it is your goal as it is the foundation's goal to make this a active and fruitful collaboration thank you was there one more question over here on day one of the conference we were all asked if we had to change the media wiki logo to something else what would we what would it be uh so what would if you had to change the logo what would you choose so okay so I'm an engineer right I mean and I didn't go into engineering because I was good at art so I don't know I like kittens probably would be a kid no maybe the goat I don't know the goats that uh that Brian Davis came up with that's kind of cool so maybe the goat don't quote me on that though but I I don't know where the sunflower sunflower came from and what was what's the provenance of that is but it's very striking visually um so we'll we'll leave it to the product managers to figure out if a new visual identity is needed in this uh you know in this view yeah yeah so I it's not what you're saying is it's not just me that is challenged visually there I mean the reason why we came engineers is because we were not good at much else really all right so um without maybe I will just thank you so much for your attention and your your hospitality I'll look forward to continue working with you for the rest of the year and suddenly if you're kind enough to invite me next year I'll come and board the pants of you next year as well thank you