We should be live with that now. Let me give it a second and wait just a moment to get up that everybody has been pulled into the session here. It looks like so. Yes, I think we're good to go. Welcome back after a after a brief break. Happy to introduce our next speaker. Good friend of mine Hugh Desmond, a fantastic scholar who's worked on all kinds of stuff. And today we'll be talking to us from the moment is he's connected with the the HP ST in Paris as well as the University of Antwerp and today he'll be talking to us about academic status in a digital age invisible barriers to open science and just a brief sort of pre plug. If you're interested in open science questions, come back tomorrow as well. Make sure to be here. There's a yet more yet more open science discussion going on tomorrow. This is a topic that I think is I'm really excited to have discussed at the conference. So without further ado, Hugh, take it away. All right. Hello everybody. So I'm, I'm speaking into a zoom screen so but let's just trust that everything is there and everybody's listening on. So I'm going to be talking about academic status today with regards to open science. Maybe just a first remark about, okay, just to be on the same page what is open science because there are a lot of definitions and understandings out there. Some approaches focus on types of practices that define open science in terms of practices like open access or data sharing sharing data sets protocol pre registration and so on. A broader approach defines it in terms of value. So the value of transparency is obviously number one there, but also equality and participation. So in the sense, you know, you have open science in spirit and open science and practice. I'll be focusing predominantly on the value of transparency and offer some critical reflections about the value of transparency. Because one question that strikes me when observing the open science literature debate discussion is that it's not really clear to me what are the downsides to open science. And so one parallel here inspiration is kind of what's been, you know, the rise and fall a little bit in public domain of social media. So, you know, not even 10 years ago, it's crazy when you think about it, but not even 10 years ago, social media was really seen as unambiguously positive for democracy, for instance. Think of the Arab Spring or the Euro Maiden Revolution in Ukraine. Social media was this new thing that was going to allow sharing and allowing new communities to be formed and ultimately to spread democracy everywhere in the world. And fast forward to today. Of course, the narrative has radically changed. So the side effects of this transparency become well recognized. Recent book by Zuboff there about surveillance capitalism, so how our privacy is being commoditized by large corporations. Mental health problems. So that's a graph from a paper by John Twinger. And how social media use is positively correlated with incidents of depression, especially among teenage girls. And then of course, we're not even talking about challenges of fake news echo chambers and so on and the list only seems to be growing. So we're not going to go into that today, but just kind of as an illustration of how, you know, I need to think of these. These are one of the favorite graphs of stock market investors of how narratives can form and can come to dominate stock markets. And at the top, everybody's talking about a new paradigm. And that's, of course, just before the crash. So I'm not saying something exactly like this is going on with open science, but there is a lot of enthusiasm in some quarters. Here is a particular particularly clear example where just more scientific transparency is just unambiguously good. No, no bad side effects to be seen from an edited volume. So talking about the second scientific revolution. I'm just reading here. So picture a situation in which scientists would be able to publish all their thoughts, results, conclusions, data and such as they occur openly and widely available to everybody. Thanks to the internet. This is of course possible and consequence knowledge could flow quickly regardless of institutions and personal networks. Research results could be published as they occur. There will be no need to wait until results are complete enough to support a full paper. So it sounds like a fantastic thing. Of course, you know, you present these couple of sentences to a philosopher and, you know, just begin to parse the first sentence in a picture situation in which scientists will be able to publish all their thoughts all. Are you sure about that? All their thoughts and as they occur. No, no filtering. Okay, so there are some extreme examples out there. But they're also what I would regard as as sophisticated and very plausible examples of this thought and very nice recent paper by Ramco Heason and Liam Bright about defending the abolishment of pre-publication peer review. And they make a very, very strong case and will make most readers seriously doubt whether we really still need or even want pre-publication peer review. And some kind of ideas assumptions in their view is that, well, a citation count as a better long term measure of scientific worth. So that peer review is a short term measure, but it doesn't always predict well how an idea or piece of scientific work will be taken up by the community. And they have a brief discussion about prestige biases. Prestige bias will be central to this talk. But they, they say that there's no evidence that it wouldn't intensify inequality in science. And these are, are themes that are going to come back. This talk isn't going to, going to target their view is such going to present a more general picture. But this is an instance of how it's unclear really what downsides there are of this move towards transparency. And my basic idea focuses on the challenge of information overload, overload crucial for, you know, any decision making process, how to select information in a complex environment. And of course, gatekeeping is one way of doing that. If you get rid of gatekeeping, you know, we're still left with the information overload. So what are the other strategies, and then the era of open science, the two main ones are via social media social media recommendations and search algorithms. So be kind of analyzing these in more detail to show how the value of transparency is manifested in these strategies. I'm going to argue that social media and search algorithms are actually riddled with status biases. And that they actually amount to a new invisible barriers column invisible because they're there but they're not manifested in job titles or in the institution names and so on. Unless there are pockets of opaque decision making, they're not transparent, and they effectively exclude some scientists. Okay, yeah, so let's move on. Quick background. What is social status? Why are minds so focused towards social status, this kind of ranking of individuals within the community? And prestige as a form of status. So prestige is peculiar to human beings. And it's very connected to the importance of social learning for the human species. You know, why do we have gatekeepers in the first place? Why do we learn from others? Basic answer is that individual learning is really weak. So the whole science of cultural evolution is based on that one insight that individual learning is very weak. Social learning is extremely important. And that's so culture is one way of structuring social learning. So we learn best in structured environments. Some books there of Sterenian and Henry that developed these insights. And so status is something more general than just prestige itself. Status in general is a group level adaptation to minimize conflict about who gets what. So, you know, like pecking orders and chickens. And cultural evolutionary anthropologists often distinguish between two forms of status dominance, which has to do with force or a threat of force. And prestige, which is then indicative of a skill or a surface from which others would benefit. And so, you know, prestige, we often talk about that in a very negative way. But within a broader picture, if you look at the manifestations of status in the natural world, prestige is a pretty benevolent way of structuring status hierarchies. Because in namely in such a way that social learning is promoted. And so we pay a lot of attention to high prestige individuals. And that is, you know, very relevant for the academic environment, academic environment, which, you know, by first or any approximation also has a serious challenge of information overload. Just think of the number of articles published per year 2021. So we're about 3 million at the moment. But, you know, it's increasing at 3% each year. But, you know, 3%, that's still an exponential increase. And so that's an overload for any one researcher, obviously. Reading and even understanding scientific article requires a lot of effort. You know, we can assume that as a given. So that requires that creates a need for some system of signaling about what to invest time and energy in. And so obviously, there are very basic adaptations here. Like having a title is already one way of signaling the information content of a piece. But we also rely on social indicators. And just think about basic academic practices here from this perspective of status hierarchies and status biases. So an editor, how would an evolutionary anthropologist analyze the phenomenon of an editorship? Well, it's a service to the community, right? They're doing a lot of work for the community. But it's also a high prestige position. They have a lot of influence also, at least in principle. Maybe 50 or 60 years ago, it was more apparent. Very interesting article there by Christ Vassen and Joel Katziff on how changes of editorship that major journals like Philosophical Review and Mind had a huge impact on the evolution of 20th century philosophy. Academic rank still, you know, it sounds quaint, but if you look kind of carefully at some of the data, it seems that academic rank is only having an increasing impact on how we direct our attention, not less. So there's this recent article, I forgot to put the citation there, that citation inequality has been increasing. So the most highly ranked members of the academic community are gaining a larger share proportionately of the total citation count. And why? Basically because their co-author networks are expanding by many multiples. And so in this way, they're capturing a larger amount of citation. The full story is also because more and more academics are temporary, so they quickly leave the profession and they don't build up any type of reputation. So that inequality means that senior academics can capture more of the citations. And so the phenomenon of gift authorship is precisely an indication of how academic rank still matters hugely in how scientists direct their attention, in which papers to read, which papers to take seriously. Gift authorship is this practice, it's considered a form of misconduct, but where you give authorship to a senior academic in order to increase its visibility and credibility and thus citation count. So it's a rational response actually to the academic environment, even though it's frowned upon of course. So getting back now to the issue of pre-publication peer review, which as indicative of the role of gatekeepers will be kind of the main example for the rest of the presentation. What is pre-publication peer review? Simply a vetting by a small group of experts who are trusted by assumption. So that is a signal then of its trustworthiness to a larger community. So if we do away with that, well it's plausible that we can do away with it. Definitely in the age of open science, but precisely because there are different ways now of sifting through the massive amount of academic material being published every year on top of all of the existing work, namely search algorithms and social media recommendations. So I want to now look in more detail in the role of biases in search algorithms and social media recommendations to show that there, I'm not saying that there are downsides, but there are questions to be asked whether the drive towards transparency, if it doesn't produce new forms of opaqueness in areas that we might not realize them to be. Search algorithms, just let's focus on Google Scholar as increasingly the dominant place where academic material is sifted through. There's PubMed and Scopus and so on, but Google Scholar is more and more accepted and more and more used. The algorithm of Google Scholar is not public knowledge. So this is what Google Scholar says about its own algorithm. It aims to rank documents the way researchers do. Weighing the full text of each document, where it was published, who it was written by, as well as how often and how recently it has been cited in other scholarly literature. Of course, nobody can blame Google for not making it public, even though it's strange that in the age of open science, we're increasingly relying on a proprietary search algorithm. But if you make an algorithm like that public knowledge, it can be relatively easily gamed and that might be one reason why they don't want to do it. Nonetheless, some time ago back in 2009, it was partially reverse engineered by two German computer scientists and what they find citation count is the dominant factor in the Google Scholar algorithm. So there's no surprises there. But nonetheless, its proprietary nature is surely worrying for the core values of open science. But I think the problems go deeper, so there's not that much information about the algorithm of Google Scholar. But there is much more about Google's search algorithm for its main search engine. I mean, it's more public. The founders of Google, they published it in a scientific article back in 1999. Page rank. So page rank was purely formal, so it didn't directly evaluate the content of pages. Only looked at the number of connections. But Google quickly abandoned it because it was open to abuse. Strategies like keyword stuffing or putting in a lot of links to other websites and so on. So I find this amazing. Google now employs a lot of what they call search quality raters to tweak the results or how different factors are weighted. So they have this whole long document on guidelines for their search quality raters. And when you do a bit of a deep dive in how precisely are these decisions being made about search quality, you get to, and there's a little citation there, your money, your life topics. So financial websites and health websites. Careful checks for reputation are required. And what is reputation based on evidence from experts, professional societies, awards, and so on. And so Google's search algorithm is anchored on the judgments of professional societies of awards, which are in turn made by professional societies. And so I haven't used a meme yet in the presentation or in the talk, so I thought this was a good place to begin. I was flabbergasted the first time I read about this, but obviously I'm naive and place unthinking trust in Google. And I'm just amazed at how the search media algorithms which are presented as this neutral sifting through of information on the worldwide web boils down to very the same old fashioned markers of quality, namely professional judgments. So if you put it in steps, we want to take this decision making power away from the old model of gatekeepers, the professions and the peer review and so on. Instead, handing some or a lot who knows to private corporations, that's already a strange move in itself for something like open science. But these private corporations have found that they're purely formal algorithms are open to abuse, they can be gamed. So they're always tweaking it, correcting it, how by ultimately following the judgments of the professional gatekeepers via content evaluators, which they then hire.  It's not a value judgment, it's not bad. Google undoubtedly had very good reasons for making this step that they did, all sorts of abuses of the search engine. But it does show how the drive to transparency makes other changes necessary. So this is based on Tversky and Kahneman, of course, but in communication science, the typical distinction is to make between heuristic decision strategies and analytic strategies. This is where purely formal properties are looked at and the second where, you know, the agent actually goes through the content and makes a judgment call. And this distinction, you know, peer review is more on the analytic side, you know, by assumption there's at least two people going through carefully, going through the text. There are biases there as well, but it's designed to be analytic. You take that away, you know, we can't make purely heuristic strategies work. So Google has come full circle and is coming back that, well, these heuristics, they need to be anchored on the analytic decision making strategies. Okay. Until there, my discussion of transparency in search algorithms. Moving on now to that second class of strategies for deciding what scientific material to pay attention to is social media recommendations. So it's increasingly clear that promotion on social media makes a big difference for uptake by the community. So of course, these are these are correlations, not causations. So it could be, of course, that the most influential researchers to begin with are the ones who tweet the most, it's probably likely part of the effect as well. So I don't know if these studies actually disentangle that kind of, you know, do the intervention, how much causal difference does tweeting actually make. But the effect sizes are huge. If you just look at the difference between tweeted and non-tweeted, these are for colo proctologists and thoracic surgeons. But I don't, and of course, I don't know to what extent that would generalize. But in any case, there are some indications that social media status, right, a number of followers once presence on social media can translate into academic status, citation count. And, you know, when citation count is taken as a proxy for scientific worth, right, as proposed by some, that it's the true long term value, the long term, sorry, it's a true measure of long term worth. And we have a situation where promotion on social media can strongly impact perceptions of scientific worth. But the question is then, what is it that determines social media status? And here, the old biases are coming in to play, just to give one example, gender bias. Again, just basing this on one study, of course, it sounds plausible. So, I mean, it fits a certain narrative, of course, right, because this is kind of something that we would be expecting. So with that caveat in mind, of course. But nonetheless, you know, striking results. This study here, recent study about gender differences and Twitter use. Does rank institutional prestige and so on also promote social media status? I don't know. I haven't come across any studies. But of course, one wouldn't be surprised if it did. So, to recap the argument and systematize it a little bit more. I pointed to the feature, it's just a feature of the academic environment, scientific environment of information overload. And the developments of open science won't change information overload. It's in fact, as we publish more and more rapidly, information overload will likely only increase. So, if you couple that two proposals to get to abolish pre-publication peer review, then more work needs to be done by the selection mechanisms, such as social media recommendations or search algorithms, or a combination of two of the both of both, of course, because what we see appearing on our social media feed is itself being selected for by algorithms. And so, more of the decision making of what is valuable and what is not valuable is being done by these opaque proprietary algorithms. So, I'm not saying that this is necessarily negative for science, although it does raise some doubts. But the argument can be made with more certainty that it undermines this idea that you can just promote transparency in a consistent way. So, if you promote transparency in one area, so in publishing and communication, that increases information overload increases the need for a selection mechanism and how precisely that selection mechanism occurs becomes less transparent. And this lack of transparency constitutes, in different ways, new, less obvious barriers to open science. So, proprietary search algorithms or one promotion on social media represents another set of barriers, barriers based on gender, based on rank, institution, and also a barrier for those who do not wish to invest that same level of time and energy on social media. So, we're kind of in a strange situation where we complain about how much time we need to invest in grants and then wasted time on peer reviewers who are unfair and so on.  Is that always such a good idea? And finally, the erosion of norms of collegiality and trust. Oh, I see Charles reappearing. I'm done actually, which I've, which many people have talked about and which I've touched upon in other work. So, take away, this being predominantly negative argument, but it's not really against open science. It's more against inspired or from this idea that there are no free lunches. So, I'm just wondering what is the price to pay? There has to be some price to pay. And if we reduce the reliance on one flawed mechanism, well, we're going to increase our reliance on other flawed mechanisms. And is that a problem? Also, not necessarily, but we just should be aware that these mechanisms are flawed. There is a remaining, a residual uncertainty on what the value is of any academics or any scientists' work. But these selection mechanisms are constructed in such a way that they give the appearance of a clarity or of a lack of uncertainty about the value of work. So, parting words then. Open science surely represents the future. But let's be aware of the challenges. Thank you. Fantastic. I didn't mean to pressure you. I was just getting my, making sure my camera would still work. No, I was checking out my own timing. I went to business. We've got a number of questions already coming in. So, let me, yeah, let me get, let me get right to it. So, one from, from Stefan Hesperigan. This is, this is a nice point. So, and this, this actually probably relates to your, to your last takeaways. There's a good, good connection here. So, this talk seems to describe, describes a world that in which libraries no longer seem to exist, right? We have institutions that are full of professionals who are trained to help us cope with information overload. So, how do you think the picture changes if we, if we start to rethink the role of libraries as mediators or facilitators of open science? Is there, actually a follow-up from Alex, mostly in a comment, in a comment on the question, like, so is there, is there a call for a new role for library sciences to play here as a field, perhaps. Kind of new forms of curation basically then. So, like, the librarian, the, the, I mean, the traditional task of the librarian is to, to make a, some type of pre-selection, of course, right? Which books are worth adding to the collection and which aren't? Yeah, I know I am describing a world when libraries don't exist. And I don't know to what extent that describes most academics today, surely not all. There are those who need to do archival work. But I think in the natural sciences, yeah, paper versions of journals are less and less being published. But you could say, well, we need more digital librarians. And I guess you see signs of that emerging. You know, like these annotated bibliographies, systematic reviews, of course. I mean, this, this work of trying to systematize knowledge in kind of a curated way. Yeah. But does, yeah, does, is that how would you square that with some of the fundamental values of open science? Because you're giving power then to this librarian to make decisions on what is valuable and what is not. So, I mean, the scope of my argument just concerned how consistent the rationale is or one of the rationales under underlying open science, namely that more transparency is a good thing. And there's just too little talk about the problem of information overload. And so I probably would agree that we will need librarians in the future or some, some type of librarian. Sure. Next question coming in from you know Petrovich says thanks for your talk very interesting. I'm wondering, however, whether your argument could be sort of recruited by the big publishers to defend the expensive paywalls behind which they're guarding scientific publications right paywalls might be the just cost for scientific quality, good peer review and so on, etc. And so they can justify their whole, you know, profit margin. And so that since he adds an oh he adds in a comment here so since you've since one of the big arguments for open science is sort of monopoly busting. Maybe that that that's a consideration that can cut against, I guess, some of the some of the other the other claims here perhaps.  Every biologist who had some critical remarks about Darwinism was immediately pounced on by the creationists. And so, so let's, I would just say first, let's not make these critical arguments known to big publishers and keep it among a more closed circle. That's not very open, of course, but but I mean, I was I had my my argument was mainly focused on this idea of abolishing peer review. And just, you know, more than just, I mean, that goes way further than just abolishing the type of rentiership of the big publishing houses, like, like Springer and so on. I mean, that goes, I mean, that would be like the abolishment of journals and of editors that we just post everything to an online repository. This huge online repository where everything is there. And you can't know whether it's a draft to be revised or and so on. And so I'm targeting more the that extreme scenario and pointing to reasons why that doesn't that scenario doesn't really make sense in the end, if you think through the consequences. But yeah, the position of the big publishing houses. That's almost that's almost not an intellectual. I mean, that's not an academic question anymore. That's just a political struggle.  No, fair enough. Next question. Let me see up just I'm trying. It's not resorting my, my questions by votes next question comes in from from rose trapeze who who has. So are do you know are there any other search engines or databases with published search algorithms. How do they fit into the picture because there is there a way to sort of open this this black box a little more. Probably so I mean the basic problem is that Google isn't as a man up and entrenched because apparently so to make a good search algorithm. You need more than just, you know, a bunch of computer whizzes having a great algorithm you need a lot of data and a lot of users using your search algorithm so you can actually tweak. So you can, you know, figure out what are the most common spelling errors or, you know, people in Louvain and what are they mainly searching for and give different results than for Louvain and then for New York and so on. And so, even if it would be published. I don't know how much it would change the position of Google. The second thing then to keep in mind is that there's a there is a principled reason for not publishing it, because once it's public knowledge, it can be gained in abusive ways. And of course, I think that's the main argument that Google would use not to publish it.  So people know what Google likes. And there's a there's an art or a science to it. And so they try to tweak their content in such ways that it'll rise up. So, you know, through some reverse engineering people know some of the large scale features of what Google likes. Of course, a virtuous form of that would be where you would gain game Google by just publishing qualitative content. And so then we're then there's really there's no problem in that case, but that's not this that's not the situation. So if you rely on heuristics, formal characteristics, you know, you can have the appearance of quality, but without having the content of quality. So that's why these algorithms can be can be gained in vicious ways. So, Sure. Oh, just actually a quick note from the chat actually Dan Hicks mentions says I'm wondering if dimensions.ai or Microsoft academic search might be more open than then Google scholars there could be an interesting kind of comparative data set there in seeing if if there's something to be learned from their guts. I haven't looked into that. Next question comes in from from Sven Lindquist who asks, who says I'd suggest you do you think there's an appetite sufficient appetite for a slow science movement so a movement away from all the flash in the pan stuff that gets published on on social media and so how could that kind of thing exist in in the current sort of reward system of of doing science. I don't know. It'll probably get worse before it gets better. Yeah, I mean, you're, you're right, there should be some type of slow science movement and there is.  I remember coming across some references. Let's let's do slow science. But that's the problem because our minds are so the it's, you know, the status biases are so strong have such a strong hold on our mind and and you see a person and other H index is 125. Oh my goodness. That is so amazing. And it seems to be entrenched that way because it's viewed as a status indicator and everybody accepts it as a status indicator. And it's it's difficult to change until then the the the downsides just become too great and too obvious to deny. But yeah, I'm not I'm not super optimistic about calls for slow science just yet anyway because there's a difference between calls for it. But and then but actually changing how administrators think about science and how or that that that level of scientists who are, you know, politicians and managers, you know, the beneficiaries of the system. They're also very low to change. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Let me ask for a quick response because I just want to I want to eat a tiny bit of our upcoming 10 minute break we have a long break here so I can get away with this. Just to ask the last question from from Luca Revelli and I'm going to even I'm going to even summarize his question a little bit apologies Luca. I wonder so do you think perhaps one way to interpret what's happening here is to say open science needs to come with open social media so maybe part of the problem here is the sort of nature of commercial social media, as opposed to a hypothetical future academic social media maybe there's a way out there to resolve some of those of those issues. Do you think that the arguments that you made are just going to this is sort of too tied up with human nature and we're just going to fall back into I don't know. Yeah, I'm a bit more inclined to the second. Yeah, I don't know what it would look like a social media. As described there.  So let's let's hide the number of likes. I think Facebook was experimenting with that in some countries, I think Australia, they're experimenting with us on a local level. Let's let's hide the number of likes because it's a source of anxiety for users. But, you know, one of the reasons to have this type of like system is precisely also to allow us to focus on to make some kind of distinction about what post to focus on. So, yeah. My more positive message, just not to be entirely pessimistic is is that in this discussion it's often too much focused on how we should create structures social structures that are ideal. But perhaps there are just no flawless social structures social media and so on. And some degree of a healthy skepticism is in order, you know, so that just not to give too much credence and too much value to the the evaluations that we see on social media and search algorithms. And here with you for that matter.


I think a really useful way of looking into the future is to look back at the past at roughly the same time frame. So if I look back the last nine or 10 years and ask myself what changes have happened within teaching and learning in higher education, I would say, you know, the centrality of blended learning, the instructions of new forms of delivery, more innovative approaches to program development, more innovative modules and a bigger emphasis on graduate skills. So I would look to the future and see all of those trends continuing and possibly to a greater degree. As time goes on, we're becoming more aware of the kinds of abilities that we want our graduates to have, maybe when they enter the workforce or as they set out on their journey of lifelong learning. And these abilities aren't necessarily fully captured by what we call the traditional subjects, but it's also the case that when I say they're not fully captured, there are essences of them within the traditional discipline. So I think it would be a mistake to cast away the traditional approaches. I think it's more like embracing them and innovating upon the knowledge and experience that's been gathered over many generations of teaching and taking it that one step forward. And if many people will have emphasized the idea of new technology and they even use terms like new forms of learning, I don't buy that at all. I think technology is always enhanced learning. Learning is the way it is since people wear people. So we don't have new forms of learning. We're just using new tools to enable us to learn. And I think a bit of that like euphoria will calm down and we'll have a better holistic and sustainable model of learning. That we will be able to apply within higher education settings. The first thing I'll say is I think it's going to look a lot different than 2021 looked from 2011's point of view. In a lot of ways, digital innovation hasn't really impacted higher education almost until the COVID-19 pandemic. And frankly, the use of video conferencing and other tools to adjust is just using existing tools to accomplish existing jobs in a slightly different way under different constraints. We've really only begun to see the true effects of digital innovation on teaching and learning. It's impacted many disciplines substantially, but the actual teaching and learning, the process of teaching and learning, the classroom hasn't really changed that much. For instance, artificial intelligence hasn't really landed in the average classroom yet. And by 2030, it will have impacted most classrooms. And the way that that teaching and learning is accomplished in the classroom, it's not just about the tools we use or the discipline specific competencies that we're obtaining in the classroom, but it's the actual way that teaching and learning will happen is going to be fundamentally changed by digital innovations. And it's not just about different tools, it's about using tools to do new things, to do things that weren't possible before. Assessment is a great example. That's going to be drastically different. And we're seeing the beginnings of that now accelerated by the pandemic. The whole sector from the point of view of an undergraduate student, for instance, the whole process of doing a degree from application to graduation and everything in between will be much different than it is today. Our classrooms are in a way the last frontier, but they will change as well. I think if we've learned anything in the last 18 months, that teaching and learning in Ireland is flexible, fast-moving and ever-changing. I think we're in a really, really exciting time and I can say, I don't think there's any way of knowing what it's really going to look like, but I know it's going to be more flexible and more accessible for all kinds of students in meeting students where they are at and being more flexible as well for teachers and professors and being able to engage and have the time to spend with their subject and sharing their knowledge and information. And I'm really excited to see all the various new forms of assessment that we are going to find over the coming years in ensuring that students are able to master their subject and not just being asked questions on a memory test.


So you two team keep it clean. Hopefully your day is continuing to go great. I love you. I appreciate you. Thank you for helping make my day better by coming through and leaving how you feel about the video, in the video, in the comments and stuff, leaving a like on the video and just supporting the channel. Thank you for doing that because that really helps out a lot and I appreciate it a lot. Thank you. Thank you for being you. So earlier today in the video, we talked about how to Ravens brought in some different guys for workout, but one of those guys was former Seahawk, former bingo, even former Jacksonville Jaguar, Cedric Ogbuy. He is an offensive tackle, been around the league for a little minute, former first round draft pick of the Bengals. Shout out to Andre Smith. And when he was released from the Seahawks, I told you, I was like, man, I just, that's so Raven. That'd be so Raven to just bring them in and be like, hey, you a former first round pick. Can we squeeze that first round draft status out of you? Can we bring you back to the reason why you a first round draft pick? But no, I just felt like the Ravens would be interested in him. And then like I said, my expectation was that they would end up signing him after they brought him in for a workout and then boom, a couple of hours later, they end up signing him to the practice squad. And let's just read the official report directly from Mike Garofalo. He says, the Ravens are signing veteran offensive tackle, Cedric Ogbui to their practice squad. With the expectation, he'll be elevated to the active roster soon sources say. So with that, he's on the practice squad right now. So he will either be put right on the active roster or they'll do their thing when they do their call-ups because they don't have to put them directly on the active roster right away. Even if they plan to play them, they wouldn't have to put them on the active roster right away because they have the two call-ups. When somebody's on a practice squad, they got the two call-ups that they can do before they either have to be elevated to the active roster after those two call-ups or they have to be released from the practice squad and they have to clear waivers and then they can go back on the practice squad. So anyway, Ravens have some options with what they do with him. And he said Baltimore's on a buy this week but starting right tackle, Patrick McCarrey suffered a high ankle sprain on Sunday. And yes, Patrick McCarrey was added to the long list of injured players for the Ravens. And it just, it is what it is at this point. It's a big blow for him. And especially with Patrick McCarrey, I just feel for him because his career, like I would call him the ultimate fill-in. And that's not a shot at Patrick McCarrey at all. It's just more commendation. Because the reason I say that's commending him is because Patrick McCarrey undrafted rookie free agent in 2019. Ravens, they playing out of their mind. They scoring all these points. They blowing all these teams out and these good teams too, by the way. And then all of a sudden it's Monday night football. Everybody's watching Ravens playing against the Rams. The offensive line been doing that thing. Even though I do feel like the offensive line was a tad bit overrated but there were a lot better than what we're dealing with right now and what we've been dealing with for the past two years. But anyway, they're playing Monday night football against the Rams. You know what I'm saying? You know Aaron Donald. I mean, I'm sure y'all are familiar. A little bit familiar with Aaron Donald. And the starting center, Matt Scurra goes down. He's out. So now, what are Ravens gonna do? They got this guy, Patrick McCarrey, but he never plays center, ever. What does he do? He comes in, plays center and it's like a seamless transition from Matt Scurra to Patrick McCarrey. You would think that Matt Scurra actually put on a number 65 jersey and just went right back to work because it was so smooth and it was like, man, is Matt Scurra, is he even missing? I thought he was still playing because the offensive line still continue to do that thing and Patrick McCarrey filled in very well. And then last year, of course, with the injuries on the offensive line, I said, Patrick McCarrey, can you play this? Patrick McCarrey, can you play that? Patrick McCarrey, we need you here. We need you there. So he had to fill in again. And then this year, Patrick McCarrey was in the start of like, okay, we got him on reserve. Cool, nice depth. Tyree Phillips, we got him on reserve. Cool, nice depth. But then those guys end up being thrust into the starting lineup with Ronnie Stanley, of course, went down.  And I was like, ooh, I don't know. But he was the ultimate feeling and he's done a phenomenal job filling in. So I just feel for Patrick McCarrey because just the hand that he was dealt in this whole thing is, it just sucks, man. Injuries are what I always say is the worst part about football. But now with them signing Cedric, Oak Boy, that gives them somebody with some experience and another spot on the practice. I feel like Raven's got like, I think it's supposed to be 16 people in the practice squad. I feel like we talk about Raven signing somebody to the practice squad like every week. And I feel like they got like 33 people in the practice squad right now, man. Because they always added somebody to the practice squad. I don't know how many people they got on there right now, but it is what it is.  Even though I know Mike Garofalo said the expectation is that he gets on the active roster soon. And that could be that.  That's, Tyree Phillips is the right tackle until further notice. But Tyree Phillips is the right tackle. And even when Patrick McCarrey comes back, depending on how things are going, I think just so much just depends on how everybody's performing at that time. Because say for instance, his offensive line is doing great. They just killing it. They blocking everybody. They creating running lanes and all that.  Or do you just leave it like it is? If it ain't broken, say if it ain't, if you came fixed, it was not broken. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. So let's see what happened. And hopefully that's the case when Patrick McCarrey comes back. Hopefully we can have that conversation. Hopefully it's a hard conversation that they gotta have with Patrick McCarrey. Hopefully. Because that will mean that things are going well. And that's what we want. But anyway, just looking at his experience, and it's, I mean, you can't really tell from a stat sheet. And I've heard mixed reviews about Cedric's play. So I guess it's gonna be one of those things where we just, if he does end up playing, we just have to see for ourselves when that time, when and if that time comes. So 2015, he didn't start, but he played in five games for the Bengals. Again, first round draft pick. 2016, he played right tackle and he started 12 games. He played in 14. 2017, he played left tackle. He started 13 games. Played in 14. 2018, he was only in two games. And then 2019, he went to Jacksonville for a year. Played in 14 games, but he didn't start any. Then with the Seahawks, he started in 2020. He started four games, played in eight. And then this year, he started one game. He played in one game, but he started just one game. And I'm not sure exactly what happened, why they released him, but that's that. Now he is a Baltimore Raven. So welcome to the squad. Welcome to the squad. I know Raven's fans are feeling, I mean, feeling a little burned by Brandon Knight. But again, if he got to deal with his mental, let him deal with his mental. That's way more important than football. So shout out to him again for addressing that. But now they got somebody who is essentially his replacement. Well, actually no, it's not even his replacement because with Brandon Knight, he was going directly to the active roster. But with Cedric, he's going to the practice squad. So that gives Ravens a little more roster flexibility. So it's just, oh boy, this thing has just been up and down and all over the place, just the way the Ravens have had to maneuver this roster from start to week seven to what it is now. It's been just a lot. It's been a lot of people that came and a lot of people that went and it's going to be more to come. So we'll see how this thing works itself out. Congrats to Cedric for becoming a Baltimore Raven. Again, hey, welcome to the flock, man. Team keeping clean. I love y'all. I appreciate y'all. Hopefully Patrick McCary with his ankle sprain because a high ankle sprain, that could be anywhere from like five or six weeks. Sometimes it'll be eight or nine weeks. It could be a little minute, man. But I do expect him, I expect the announcement. I think it's probably going to come tomorrow. Tomorrow's Thursday. Usually when a reporter reports something about the Ravens, usually the Ravens end up announcing it the following day. So I expect tomorrow for the Ravens to announce this signing of Cedric O'Booie to their practice squad. And also I expect tomorrow for the Ravens to announce that they put Patrick McCary on injured reserve. And again, hopefully a short-term injury reserve because it's not going to be for the year. Not a high ankle sprain, not at this point in the season. Especially with it being a longer season. But yeah, I expect them to make some announcements tomorrow. So we'll see how this thing goes. I love y'all. Y'all keep your heads up with whatever you're going through. Just keep pushing. Because it'll get better. Trust me. We out.


Good morning, and welcome OpenStack community. To kick things off, please welcome Jonathan Brice. Well, good morning everyone, and welcome to Vancouver. This is super exciting to be here. Vancouver is an amazing spot. It is so beautiful here, and it's awesome to have the summit. I was actually born in North Vancouver. So when you are walking around this beautiful venue, if you look across the inlet, that's North Vancouver. That's where I came from, and it's cool to come back here with about 6,000 of our closest friends and have a great week all focused on OpenStack. So before we get started, we still have some people coming in, but we're gonna go ahead and start rolling. We've got some housekeeping items to get through. Just to kind of, I want to get a little bit of a feel for how many of you are here for your first time? At an OpenStack summit. Wow. Okay. Well, welcome to the community. The OpenStack summits are really, really fun events. There's tons of work, tons of content. We have almost 500 sessions happening here this week. So there's something for everybody, and it's a great community that loves to bring new people in. If you are wondering how you find your way around this week, most of the information you need is around your neck right now. On that badge you have, there's an insert, and it folds out. It has the Wi-Fi information. It has venue maps. It has the overall schedule of events when lunch and break times are. But you know, just to really dive into the details, I recommend getting the mobile apps. And we have the mobile app available in both the Apple Store and the Android Store. And this has the schedule for every session throughout the week, where it is, maps again, so you can find your way around. We are in a very big venue. So just to help you orient yourself a little bit, we are in the lower level here, in this big blue square, which is a really large space that we're doing the keynotes in. At the back of this hall is the primary location for lunch that's served every day. There's also food available up on the main level, up by the marketplace, where we have our expo hall, and the marketplace this time around in the summit is pretty amazing. The location that we're in, the room that it's in is just fabulous. You should definitely go up there, check out our sponsors, check out the view, and really take it all in. And we also have box lunches available up on level two, if you just want something to grab quickly. The convention center is split into two buildings. We are in this building that has the grass roof on it. It's the West Building. And then the East Building is a short walk. There's actually a tunnel that goes over to it. It's about ten minutes. Most of the sessions are in the West Building. One of the things that we're doing this time is we actually have a lot of communities that work with OpenStack and a lot of other technologies, and we're doing some collaboration days where technologies like OpenNFV and CoreOS and others are holding sessions throughout the week. And so if you want to participate in those, a lot of those are happening in the East Building, and you can again reach that through that walkway. A couple of events today. We have lunch with our OpenStack Foundation board. If you want to meet the board members, meet the people who are involved in the governance of the OpenStack Foundation. You can go to lunch, 12.45 to 2 p.m. They're going to be wearing badges that are red, and there'll be some other signs. You can talk to them, you know, tell them what you care about, tell them what you think we should be working on for the foundation, and where you want to see OpenStack going. And then tonight, the Expo Hall opens up, and we're going to have a booth crawl and happy hour starting at 6 p.m. from 6 to 7.30 p.m. And I again recommend you go check that out and see our marketplace, see the sponsors that make this possible, see the companies who are innovating on top of OpenStack. Just the last few things before we start to dive into some content this morning. We have a women of OpenStack group that that is really starting to get active, and they had an event last night, but they have a couple of other sessions during this week that if you are interested in diversity and especially in gender diversity in tech and in OpenStack, we'd love for you to come and participate and help us, you know, improve the situation there and move the needle. So on a 7 a.m. Tuesday morning, there's a working session and breakfast with the women of OpenStack group that you can you can join. The design summit, you know, this is one of the main reasons that that we all get together every six months is to set the direction and decide, you know, where is OpenStack going? Technically, what are we going to do with the software? This design summit, we've combined both the developer sessions and the operator sessions into a single design summit and that takes place on the upper levels of this building here. You know, I think that that this is going to be really interesting to see as we get our developers and our operators together solving issues, setting the direction, setting the priorities. It's going to be awesome to see that collaboration happening. And, you know, as we do this, we're actually going to have more operator sessions and more design sessions than ever before. So it's going to be a really busy week for a lot of the developers in the audience who are here to work and plan the future of OpenStack. We have a couple of things for you to take with you. You might remember that a year ago, we launched Super User Publication, SuperUser.OpenStack.org, and we have the first print copy of that here. It's got a guide to the summit. It's got information about Vancouver. It has some feature articles about emerging technologies and also interviews with various OpenStack users. So make sure you get your copy, flip through it, and check it out. And of course, we always try to put together a great giveaway for our attendees. And this time around, we have a windbreaker, a rain jacket. It's really nice. I have actually seen hundreds of them already walking around the streets of Vancouver, which was pretty cool yesterday. But they are available in two colors. You go pick them up at our stacker swag store. That is up one level on level one. It's just outside the marketplace. And you get that with your registration. So make sure that you go pick up your jacket and join all of us as we wear it around Vancouver this week. So I want to talk about some different things that we've been working on. And this morning, I'm really excited about the keynotes this morning, because we've got some announcements, but we also have some old users who are coming back, some new users who are going to be talking. And we're also doing some demos. And these demos are pretty sweet, I think. I think we're going to be showing you some things you've probably never seen before. So that is what we're going to do this morning. But first, I want to set the stage a little bit. We've talked a lot at the OpenStack Summit about how critical software development is. You know, this software-defined economy concept. And it's something that is impacting every company and every organization out there. It's how we innovate, it's how we compete, it's how we move faster. And it is something that is across all geographies and across all industries. You know, this isn't just about high-tech, about technology software companies. You think about traditional, physical, capital-intensive businesses. And you've got the hotel industry. You know, they've got big physical footprint, the taxi industry, capital-intensive, physically located, the retail industry. All of these industries are being disrupted by software. Being disrupted by this application economy. If we just look at the taxi industry, you know, the ride-sharing services like Lyft, got Uber, they have had a dramatic impact on this industry. The price of a taxi medallion in New York City has dropped 20% since Uber was introduced. In San Francisco, the number of taxi rides has dropped 65% since Uber started service there. That is true disruption of an industry. And this is something that impacts everybody. You know, there's not a real walled garden anymore that isn't available to this. And so, companies who, you know, they may have a physical location, they may have a lot of physical locations, they have to deal with this too. And later this morning, we're going to be hearing from the largest company in the world, Walmart, about how they're approaching this. And so, I'm really excited to hear the Walmart keynote later. But before we get to that, I want to touch on some of these trends that we're seeing. You know, technology constantly driven by buzzwords. And this is one of those phrases right now, developer productivity. How many of you have heard this uttered repeatedly over the last couple of months? Something that gets said all the time, right? Developer productivity. You know, I've been a developer for a long time, and I guess I never realized how unproductive we were. I thought I was writing a lot of code. I thought it was, you know, building apps. But apparently, you know, we've been unproductive, and so everybody wants to make us productive now. And to do that, you know, it's tool after tool that comes out. Docker, Rocket, Mezos, Ansible, Kubernetes, you know, everything that comes out is oriented around this. But it can actually be pretty intimidating, this proliferation of tools. And ultimately, what it all comes down to, all of those applications, all of those tools, everything that happens is all about processing data, storing data, and moving data. You know, the basic foundation is still compute, storage, and networking. Now, ideally, our applications can get those building blocks quickly, securely, and in the location that's best for our users. So, you know, wouldn't it be great if you could have a global footprint that gave you access to those resources? You know, in a public cloud, where it made sense, in a private cloud where you might have security or regulatory requirements, or, you know, maybe even a cost profile that you can achieve better in a private cloud, or hosted private cloud if you want to avoid multi-tenancy, but don't want to take on all responsibility. You know, that would be a great vision if you could do something like that.  This global footprint of interoperable clouds that bring together compute, storage, and networking resources. So, you know, as we look at where we are now, we've reached a very big milestone for OpenStack. And I'm really excited to announce that we are now rolling out our first round of interoperability tests and requirements to define a common core that must be available in every OpenStack environment, private, public, or hybrid. And this is a huge step forward for us. It involves common code that's going to be available in every product or service that calls itself OpenStack and common APIs that work the same way. So, all of these OpenStack environments, they look the same, they act the same, and this is tested and validated. Now, we are just getting started with this. You know, we're announcing this today, but we've already worked with a few companies who have started to do this early. And if you go to the openstack.org slash marketplace URL, you can start to see this information being shared today. This is now live. You'll notice that with the OpenStack powered logo, there will also be an icon that displays when a product or service has been tested. If you drill into that, you can see exactly which capabilities they have, what they've enabled, what they're testing, what is validated, and what you know is going to be there. These 16 companies are live in the marketplace today with their testing results. And through the rest of 2015, we're going to go across all products and services that are OpenStack branded and put this in place. And you will know what you're getting, what is available, and this is really creating an OpenStack powered planet. When you see a product or service with that logo, you know what capabilities you're getting and you can count on this as your solid foundation to build your applications on. This is compute, storage, and networking. That's what that gives you. You know, this has been a cool process too as we've defined this. It's been a very community driven process. And I specifically want to thank Rob Hirschfeld and the deaf core committee and all of the people who put a lot of work into it because it has been a very massive effort to come to an agreement on what we need to have in these clouds, how to test it. And so I just want to thank the deaf core committee for putting this together for us. So this is what every application runs on top of. Compute, storage, networking. And you know, compute is not just virtualization. Sometimes people think of OpenStack as virtualization management, but OpenStack does virtualization, does containers, it does bare metal. And the keynote's tomorrow, we're actually going to get a peek at some of that when Mark Collier does a series of demos and shows off some of this. So come back tomorrow morning as we kind of expand beyond just these basic building blocks. You know, this is the base and the OpenStack development community has done an amazing job of producing a solid core. The summits come after our releases and we get ready to start planning for the next release. And Kilo is the 11th OpenStack release that we just had. It was a community effort. And I want to thank all of the contributors that submitted code in the Kilo cycle. If you contributed to Kilo and you're here, could you stand up? So thank you. And you'll notice a very large percentage of the attendees here are the people who are building the software. So if you are one of those first-time attendees, if you're new to OpenStack, that's why it's so important to come to these summits. Because it's not just about the sessions that we have in the conference, it's not just about the marketplace that we have. It's bringing together the whole community of products and services, developers, users, and that's what makes the OpenStack summits so powerful. So thank you to all the contributors in Kilo. Before we go farther, I did want to mention one other thing. During the Kilo cycle, we lost a member of our community. Chris Yo was a core committer and he had a very big impact on OpenStack and on his fellow contributors. And for the Kilo release, the technical committee and our community of contributors dedicated that to the memory of Chris Yo, which I thought was just a really great move. So I just wanted to take a minute to mention that and to remember Chris. And his family has asked for, if you want to do something for Chris, they've asked that contributions be made in his memory to free to breathe. Free to breathe. So just wanted to mention that because we are a community and I think that it's one of the things that makes OpenStack really special. So Kilo took a lot of work, a lot of effort from a lot of teams. There's one other person that I want to call out. We, for those of you that aren't familiar, OpenStack has broken up into different technical projects and each of those projects has a project team lead who is responsible for guiding the efforts of their community of developers and setting priorities and moving the work along. And we elect those leaders from the developers every six months. And a lot of times these PTLs, they'll come back and they'll serve multiple terms, but we have one that was a PTL since the very beginning and she has recently decided to let someone else take the lead on documentation and I just wanted to send out a special thanks and give some recognition to Ann Gentel who's been so key to making OpenStack happen. And I think she's over there, so thank you Ann. One of the really cool features that was in Kilo and that I'm really excited to get to show you this morning was around federated identity. You know, this is a feature that's been developed over a couple of releases, but it's one that shows the power of having an OpenStack-powered planet with a global footprint of clouds. You know, if you have a lot of clouds, they look and act the same, that's great. But once you have that, of course you're gonna wanna take advantage of it. You're gonna wanna find the cloud that fits your needs the best and you're gonna want to integrate with it easily to tie it into your application easily, basically to extend your footprint wherever you need to go. And so that is really what federated identity enables.  We're going to dive deeply into one particular industry here. That's the TV and film industry. When you think of TV and film, you probably think of Hollywood. You think of, you know, L.A., Tinseltown, movie stars, all of that kind of thing. And the reality is that the way that TV and film is made is changing dramatically. This is data on the growth of production in various locations around the world over the last two years. And what you can see is that production globally is growing dramatically. And this is creating incredible shifts in their workflows and in how they make TV. But it's not just about this geographic distribution, which is a huge issue, but there are other things that they're dealing with. You know, going to digital has enabled them to do a lot of new things, but has also created new challenges. So an hour of TV is usually 44 minutes of content. Does anybody want to take a guess about how many minutes of footage they shoot for 44 minutes of content? Anyone? 10,000, I heard someone say 10,000 out there. That is a big guess. So they actually shoot 3,600 hours, 216,000 minutes of television, sometimes across 20 or more cameras, multiple takes, across days and days of shooting, hundreds of thousands of minutes of television. An hour of 4K content is 700 gigabytes, 3,600 hours to go to that 44 minutes of content. So this is, you know, a massive data problem and they're doing this all over the world. So it's distributed. It's really interesting to see the challenges that they're facing. And so we're gonna take a little time, we're going to, like I said, dive deep into this. To set this up, we have a video from an executive at TNT, Ron Vankowski. So let's roll the video over on. I'm Ron Vankowski, Vice President of Post-Production for Turner Broadcasting. When we were reliant on even file-based workflows, the movement of materials was somewhat clunky and not very cost-effective. Trying to figure out what particular file types for whomever, for whatever their needs are, was just cumbersome. I really like the evolution of cloud-based workflow. On our show AsianX, for example, we have all of our raw dailies stored in the cloud. And our promo department can access it. Our visual effects department can access it. Everybody can access it immediately. And the efficiency gained by having a cloud-based workflow is just far superior to anything so far. So Ron talked about some of these challenges that they're facing. And what he said is that there's an approach that they're using, which is that he called it a cloud-based workflow. And there's a company that has built a set of services and products on top of OpenStack to really address these needs and to create that cloud-based workflow. And that's Digital Film Tree. So to dig into this today, I want you to help me welcome from Digital Film Tree, Guillaume Obachan. Oh, thank you so much. It's so great to be back. I always enjoy coming to the OpenStack every time. So to touch a little bit on what we do and how we take that 216,000 minutes and whittle it down to 44, it's really indicative of the creative process. The creative process is a process of reduction. And I compare making television to sculpture.   So there's so many people that contribute to this process of whittling down that material. You start with the editor who takes that content and really sort of trims the fat out of it and makes a small reduction. You have the director who has circle takes and gets it down to about 60 minutes, some sort of usable timeframe. You have producers that come in that further whittle that down about 50 minutes. You have the studio and network who give notes that make the content worse, but make the time shorter. So, and then you finally get to 44 minutes. You finally get to this magical number. So this is all a process and ultimately a problem of storage and accessibility. Having access for all these people and storing all this content to grant that access to them. So we have three challenges essentially. We have multiple regions.  We have highly paranoid clients. We have studios and networks who don't wanna be on CDN, so we have to go replicate content as close as possible to that production. So we need to be in multiple regions and therefore we need to be in multiple clouds. Not everyone is everywhere in this business. Some people have data centers closer than others. So we need to be on multiple clouds and we also need to completely ditch physical migration for the reasons of data loss and just the inefficiencies of physical migration. And to speak to sort of this interoperability, HBO asked us, they came to us and they said, can you run on top of AWS? And we, because they already trusted AWS. And so what we were able to do was actually boot up an open stack instance, running our applications on top of AWS for those purposes. So really just to prove the point of open stack interoperability for our business. So one of the shows we did this year was this great show called Unreal. Shot in Vancouver, six miles across the Inlet, which I was informed it is an Inlet. Cut in Los Angeles and all done on open stack. And really, this show could not have been done two or three years ago. And it needed to be done on Cloud Workflow. So the premise of Unreal is it's about the behind the scenes of making a reality show, okay, like The Bachelor. And so what that required us to do is they would shoot content in the morning in Vancouver. We would push that material down to Los Angeles, editorial would cut it, we would push it back up here, and they would play it back, and they would shoot a scene with the material they shot in the morning back here. So high res content, 4K content, back and forth within an eight hour period basically. So really undoable without the cloud. Fortunately, at the same time, like a true television coincidence, at the same time Unreal was getting started, we were contacted about a proof of concept that OpenStack wanted to do around federated identity. And they wanted to do it with two providers. They wanted to do it with HP and BlueBox. And what this proof of concept allowed on Unreal was for us to run our private instances of OpenStack, running our application in Vancouver and Los Angeles, and then instantly scale those workloads out to public cloud with HP and out to hosted private cloud with BlueBox. So instant scalability, on-demand scalability with two little files. But because I'm a doer and not a sayer, we wanted to prove to you how this works in practice. So Jonathan, if you wanna bring that Sony 4K camera out, let's show them how this works. All right, here's the camera. We're gonna make a little TV magic here. There you are, okay. So what are we gonna do here, Guillaume? Oh look, they're already waving, in anticipation. Everybody loves to see themselves on TV. Okay, so I think we're gonna shoot a little shot. Okay. Yeah, so everybody over here, we're gonna get a shot and pan a little bit, so wave. Wave, yeah. Yeah, I'll say hi to your mom. Woo, give me some energy, more energy. This is your TV moment. Yeah. All right, this section here especially, keep it going. Yeah. Keep it going, come on, energy, energy, energy. Five, four, three, two, one, cut. I think I could do this. You know, I think three more takes and we got it. Okay, so this is some footage now that we've captured, so what are you doing here? So we got the little card, it was shot.  And this is a 4K camera. It is a 4K camera. Okay, it's cool. Newest and latest and greatest from Sony. So we're gonna take this footage now. And we've got our Aspera instance, which is running our critique cloud, which is backed by a Swift back end. And we're gonna create a new folder here, called new folder two.  And we're gonna go ahead and upload this content to digital film tree. All right, and this is the process that when you were here shooting Unreal, you take all this footage and you would go, I think you told me before that you had a Colo facility here and basically an upload node. Correct, we're actually still doing a show up here called Mistresses, which is done out of a Colo shot and it's transported and transcoded simultaneously to Los Angeles every night. Wow, okay, cool. And before you were doing this with the cloud, how would you get this footage to wherever the production office was? Either via some sort of courier service or a poor PA would get on a plane with a drive. And that's what PA... They would physically carry it. Physically carry it. It's digital data that you'd be using petroleum transport protocol. Absolutely. Okay, I think what we should do is a bake off. Okay. So we'll take this card and I think we should physically ship it to Los Angeles. Okay, can we try to get this shipped to LA as quickly as possible? We'll get a tracking number and share that later and we can see how it goes. So what happens now? We've uploaded some footage. Well, I think Thomas, who's one of our visual effects artists and Coloris in LA, should do some magic as quickly as possible to it. Hello, Thomas. Hi, Guillaume. Hi, Thomas. And hi, Jonathan. Hi, Thomas. Welcome to the OpenStack Summit. Thank you. I'm glad to be here. So you have that footage. So prove to the good people that you have that footage. I'm looking at it right now. Look at that. Wow, cool. The beauty of cloud. Now, how do we know he's in LA, though? Yeah, how do we know you're in LA? That was an excellent question. I'm in LA. Okay, we'll trust you. You know, if you only looked more like a hipster, it would prove it out, I'm just saying. Gotta look nice, gotta look nice. So I'll give you what? Like a four and a half to five minutes? Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah, you do that. And we'll check back in with you. All right, sounds good. Good luck. Okay, so we're doing this demo here, but I want you to talk a little bit more about the process. This, to go from camera through the production. So essentially what we just did is the first step of the process, which is a media acquisition, ingest process, transcoding that material, transporting that material simultaneously, and transcoding that material because we still need a proxy file.  You can't use the raw footage, yeah. Absolutely. So you still need that proxy file. And simultaneously we're doing metadata association because for us we need to go back to that 4K, we need to deliver in 4K, but you're gonna be working with the offline file, so you need to link them back up. And then obviously we're granting access to that material, removing access, all these things that go into security.  But what we're doing is actually we're sort of applying big data analytics to this footage for the first time. So we're really sort of contributing back this new sort of efficiency and data model and information back to the studios that they haven't had before. In Ron's video, I saw a lot of paper, a lot of books. That was all tracked before, right? It was. And sometimes I have like a romantic, like I look back at that and I go, oh, that was cool. And then I snap back to reality and go, oh, wait, no. And so you guys have built apps to this, right, on top of OpenStack? Absolutely, we built Critique, which is our OpenStack-powered review and approval service, and then we built ProStack, which is basically our Swift instance for media. Okay, cool. So who uses these apps and these services as you go through the process? So really what this has enabled is us to stitch together for the professional and provide them access in the same way that they're accustomed to with, for instance, their baby videos. So we're providing that same level of access to the mobile, to the tablet, to the workstation, everywhere they are, through the web, to that content. Okay, you mentioned that you had expanded your workflow and done this with federated identity onto some other environments. So I wanna bring out the project team lead for the OpenStack Identity Service to talk a little bit more about that. So help me welcome Morgan Fainberg. How's it going, Morgan? It's going well. So, you know, big release with Kilo, federated identity. Can you tell us a little bit more about what it is, what it enables? Sure, well, let's be clear. We've had federated identity in OpenStack and Keystone since Icehouse. What's new is the ability to really use a Keystone-to-Keystone deployment. Okay, so linking OpenStack cloud. Yes, single source of identity, all controlled from one place. You don't have to worry about having every one of those sources of identity, every one of your partners, also having to have the data linked to every one of your clouds. So you can expand and contract dynamically, as needed. Much as digital film tree is done with HP and BlueBox and this proof of concept. So what are the protocols? What are the technologies? What's the process involved to make that happen? So you start by authenticating with your private cloud, just like you normally would. You have username, password, and you get a token back. You can act on the resources on the cloud. You can create instances, do Swift things, even manage Keystone assets, make changes. At that point, you decide, I wanna work with another provider. I wanna work with BlueBox. I wanna work with HP. And I hand Keystone token and say, give me my authentication that these provider can understand. In this case, we use SAML assertions, the SAML-to-Spec. The reason being is that it's a known quantity. It's a standard. The corporate security overlords, when they say, how are we going to do this? Yeah, they know it's a known quantity. We don't have to justify, this is a crazy new technology. It's fairly well understood. Okay, so this enables us to have a primary identity provider to take those resources and manage them in that instance but then also to take our identity and go manage resources somewhere else. Absolutely. And once you authenticate to the remote cloud and the SAML assertion really is just a bundle of attributes.  At that point, you're giving a Keystone token again but now on the remote cloud. Guess what? Works the same as on your private cloud. Everything is the same. So it sounds like it's easy to spread the resources out but how does that work in terms of security if I want to bring resources back in or control this kind of sprawl of everything and who has access to it? So there's two pieces with the security. The first piece is that when I am removing a partner cloud, just because I don't need the capacity right now, I can remove that from the service catalog and nobody can act and consume resources for it and that's a new feature in Kilo as well that the service providers are part of the service catalog. But more importantly, you have control of each individual user from a central source meaning that if we decide that we're going to not let Jonathan Brice access any of the content that's run real anymore because we're done with that. Yeah, we don't need you to do that. At that point, we remove your access at the central source, at the digital film tree private cloud and you no longer have access in HP, in Blue Box or any of the other clouds that have been expanded for this. And this is important for your industry especially because you were saying that the security and access is so critical but before you would have to go physically pick these devices up, pick these drives up. Absolutely, and we're firing people left and right. So, you know. Okay, well, so I want to see, you know, you have these services that you talked about and I want to see how you can expand them from, you know, your private cloud out. Absolutely, so let's go to the demo on Guillaume's laptop here. What we have here, proof of concept, not pretty, not pretty by any means, not styled. So, what we have here is, you know, we're already running a couple of instances. We're running private instances of our OpenStack. We're running some workloads on top of Brackspace. And we're going to go ahead and add a service to replicate and we're going to replicate that from DFT since we're the identity provider in this case. We're going to replicate our ingest and storage instances. So, basically that's Swift and Nova Compute. And we're going to replicate them to HP Cloud East. And we're going to hit submit. And we're going to start booting up those instances on HP Cloud East and transitioning that workload there. And if you were to look behind the scenes and really take a look at what was being run, it's the same commands, it's the same hooks into libraries that if you type Nova boot, if you told Nova client to create these instances, it looks the same, it really is the same, it uses the same tool chain that already exists within OpenStack. So, we don't have time to get into all of the details of how you made that happen. But I know that you guys have another session that's happening later today and it's the Federated Identity Deep Dive and it's going to be 340 today. So, if you want to go find out how they made it work and you're going to have all of the texts from the different companies that enabled this there, right? Yep. Then, you know, find this session, look it up in your app and go check out the Federated Identity Deep Dive. And definitely come ask your questions. We really want to answer your questions so that you can also make use of this technology. Cool. Thank you very much, Morgan. Thanks for having me. Thank you so much. Okay, so, what's next? So, I think we should check back with Thomas and figure out whether he's still employed with me. Thomas! Hello. Are you done? I am, yes. I have everything completed and it looks like we are up and ready for viewing. Ah, okay, so what do we do to view this? I think we should view it on my phone. It's very much like a Hollywood producer of you there. Absolutely. So, we're logged into Critique, which is our video streaming application. We're getting a little peek at some of the shows that you work on here. Again, that's going to peek at my password, too. Don't worry, I use that same password for everything. So, is it OpenStack 51815? Yes, sir. Great. Okay, so what do we have here? Okay, so we got the shot. That was the reserved seating section for a press and analyst. Can you put them back? Oh, really? I'll try and find them. Thank you so much, Thomas. Thank you very much, Thomas. No problem. So, that was pretty cool. I mean, we shot some footage here. We put it in a cloud, replicated it to LA. He did, what did he do to it? He did some color. He did some visual effects. I mean, and I have to be honest, the turnarounds on Rio were crazy, but they weren't six and a half minutes, which we just pulled off. Yeah, I mean, that was awesome. That was very, very cool. And none of this unreal or that shot would have been possible without OpenStack Cloud and without you guys in the OpenStack community and really driving this forward. So, what we wanted to show you as a last little piece is the end credit bed from the first episode of Unreal, that premieres in two weeks, and let's roll that video. Thank you so much. I am always in awe. Thank you. Thank you for helping. So, that is, that's the OpenStack community's first film and television credit. And we're gonna get to see that in two weeks when this show premieres. You know, Guillaume, he talked about going from camera to cloud. And how, you know, that is what they have to do right now in the film and television industry. And it's all powered by OpenStack. But there's actually another step that you can do with OpenStack, not just from camera to cloud. We can go all the way from camera to couch. So, help me welcome some friends from Comcast, Mark Mule, Sheila Saby, and Andrew Metri. Hi. How you doing? Good to see you. Good to see you, guys. Nice to see you. Thanks for having us. So, what can you show us here? Well, I thought we might at least try to see if we could get a preview of Guillaume's work. Okay. Unreal. Do our search here. There we go. Looks like we've got a trailer. Okay, so this is, yeah, that looks like the show that Guillaume was talking about.  I know the hotel rooms are scarce here. You didn't have to sleep on the couch. I could have gotten your room. Got rooms. Okay, so let's see what the trailer is here for the show. Hello, ladies. If you haven't got problems, I feel bad for your son. Oh, nice.  Action. All right, so there's Guillaume's work. Maybe it's safer to stop there. And, you know, here we really see that OpenStack plays a part in the production of this all the way through to, you know, watching it in your home. Exactly right. So we were here in Portland, you know, a couple years ago, and we showed the X1 guide working on top of OpenStack. And we put a lot more stuff on our OpenStack infrastructure. You know, all of the applications that we showed the last time around, like the Weather app, runs on top of OpenStack today. There's a number of other challenging apps that we've moved over to the OpenStack infrastructure. And really let us do things like for the Super Bowl or for World Cup, you only have a few weeks from the moment when all of the people that are creative decide what they want to implement to when you actually have to have it ready for millions of users. And so in a period of about four weeks, we can create an app from scratch, get it running, and scale it up for millions of Comcast customers.  I did. And I like to play with that. Oh, you like the toys, sure. So how does that work? This is our talking guide, which we have turned off, and this is the voice remote. So there's a little blue button there. Press it. You'll get a little audio prompt and then try a movie quote. Okay. We had an alien abductions. We could stay with the space theme. May the force be with you. Since I'm in the Weather app, hit exit to go all the way back out. Sorry. Here we go. Oh, it actually did it. And it did the search in the background. So there's Star Wars. So we've got a bunch of trailers. You can buy some movies to keep. Your app integrations. Yep. You know, we had Kilo, which our Kilo logo was a little spinal tap reference. This one goes to 11. Uh-oh, that one might be tough. Oh, okay. Oh, it was worth a try. So a lot of new apps in here and tight turnarounds on them, but Andrew, I know that you guys have also grown your infrastructure quite a bit during this time. Yeah, actually, so since Atlanta, we've tripled our infrastructure doubled since Paris. And the treatment's grown about five times since we last demoed in Portland. We now have, our cloud serves internal customers. It's our products and services that run on it. And we have almost 600 different internal projects or tenants running on our cloud and 1,700 users of our infrastructure today. 600 customers, 1,700 users. That's serious infrastructure. Apps like, or NFV voice apps, real-time video apps, all running on top of cloud today. Okay, well the thing that I really appreciate about you guys is how much you give back to the community. And we were just in Philly a couple of months ago for the operators meetup. Yes, we hosted the operators meetup in Philadelphia in March. We've also led the IPv6 sub team in Neutron. We've contributed to about, I want to say over 37,000 lines of code. And we'll continue to do more. And we're excited. Well that's awesome. Most OpenStack users are not going to be contributing like that. But when we get some users like Comcast, like Yahoo, who are doing that, it really helps keep the code base and the projects focused on the things that are critical for real-world use cases. And because of that, you guys are one of our finalists for our Super User Award. So congratulations for that. Thank you. And yes, tomorrow we are going to be announcing the winner of that. So thank you for joining us. And you'll have to come back tomorrow and see how you fare in the Super User Award. Thanks a lot, Jonathan. Thanks, Andrew and Sheila. Thanks.