Who cares about what a room coordinator has to say about the speaker? It's quite obvious a lot of people care about Debian, so I'll hand it over straight away to Stefan. Will you join me in welcoming him? So thanks everybody. It's a real pleasure to be here. It's my first time in Australia and my first time at LCA, and I must say I'm really much enjoying the conference. So the kind of teasing title of this talk is because there are quite some rumors about Debian and the role of which Debian is playing in today's ecosystem, and my answer to that question is that you should care about Debian because quite some parts of today's free software ecosystem depends on Debian, even if you don't necessarily know about that. So I'm trying to convince you of this thesis, clearly I'm a bit biased on this topic being the Debian project leader, but I'll try very hard to hide that fact from you during the talk. So to speak about Debian is often useful to start from the beginning. So there are a couple of historic facts which are relevant to this discussion. So let's start from how Debian started. So the small paragraph of text you see at the top of this slide is actually the message that Jan Marduk, the founder of Debian, sent to a news group, back then we used heavily news group to communicate, called CompUS Linux Development. And in that message, Jan was announcing the imminent compression of a new Debian Linux release called Debian. So I think it was a bit optimistic because we nowadays know that free software distribution are essentially never complete. So 17 years later Debian is not yet complete, it will never be. So Jan was defined a bit optimistic back then. But in that message, you could find some of the main reasons for creating Debian and for having Debian around. So one of the first reasons, one of the first motives to have Debian back then was to create a non-commercial distro but which was still able to compete in the commercial OS market. So that was the prime motive to run Debian, to create Debian, sorry. And Jan wanted to have something easy to install, of course the criteria for being easy to install back then are not quite the same we have today. So I don't think Jan was thinking back then to have a CD put in your reader and ten minutes later have a system installed. I don't think he was thinking of that back then. And another point for him was to actually have a system which was built collaboratively and collaboratively by a group of experts which were experts in every single package that we're putting in the distribution. So the idea was that if you're maintaining a package, well, then you know a lot about it and you are an expert of the software you are delivering to your users. And finally, another criteria for creating Debian back then was to actually have the first major distribution which was actually run in an open manner in the spirit of the GNU project. And actually Debian has been GNU supported for a while in its early existence. So this is how all it started and then there are two more important events in the history of Debian which are relevant for this discussion. So the first one is the creation of the Debian social contract in 1997. So this social contract is an agreement between the people who make Debian, so Debian developers in general, and not only Debian users but the free software community at large. And in that contract you find four main points. So the first one is a commitment of having Debian as a purely 100% free operating system. The second one is a commitment to give back to the free software community, meaning that every change you do in Debian, well, you commit yourself to giving it back to the upstream author so that everyone can benefit from the change you have made in Debian. Then there is the spirit of openness which Debian has been joining since the beginning which is defined as don't hide problems. And finally, the document defines the priority of Debian which are essentially true. So free software on one side and users on the other side. So this kind of document, the social contract is still in effect and it's what binds together people who make Debian and user of Debian. And the other important point in Debian history which is relevant for us today is the Debian constitution which has been created for the first time in 1998. And what the document is essentially a set of structures and roles to govern a free software compatible democracy. So why I say free software compatible, well, because we don't really have to go through the burden of voting on every single change, we want to enable people to work as they like in open source and free software and do whatever they want unless at some points the community feel the need of voting on something. So that is what the Debian constitution enabled people to do. So there you find decision procedures and I'll get back to that shortly. You will find how democracy is used in Debian and you will find some scaffolding like the Debian project leader or the secretary to actually run votes. So this is in starting from 1993 up to now and 17 years later the landscape is a bit different. So we now have in Debian something like 30,000 binary packages is probably the largest free software distribution existing today. And in 17 years we have released 11 times and the 12 times Debian squeeze is going to be released most likely next in the weekend of 5 and 6 of February. The project has been growing a lot. So we are now today 900 Debian developers, 100 Debian maintainers which are a different technical role in the project, plus thousands of contributors like porters, translators, battery alger and so on and so forth. And we also have in Debian the largest number of ports among mainstream Linux distribution. So we had 12 for Debian landing and starting with Debian squeeze you are going to have two, for the first time, two non-Linux ports. So we're going to have two ports based on the free BSD kernel blend with a new user land. And finally we have that in all these years something like 120 other distribution which has based their work on Debian. And well if you ask me this is a pretty good success. So it's quite impressive considering where Debian started from. Nonetheless the landscape has completely changed. So back then there were like two, three Linux distribution and today there are kind of hundreds of them. So if you look at source forage you find hundreds and hundreds of Linux distributions and Debian is just one of them. So there are many. So why should one choose Debian? Why should one care about Debian in the first place? Especially considering that some of those other distribution have very nice features. For instance some of them release more frequently like every six months. Some of them have more users. Some of them innovate more, whatever that means. Some of them get more credit, press, you find news about them in the newspaper and this kind of stuff. Or whatever other food you might, FUD you might have about Debian add it to that list.  Okay, thanks. And more importantly, oh come on, go to another talk then, you're useless here. So is Debian still relevant? And yes it is. I think it is, but I don't want you to take my word for that. I want to explain why it is the case. So there are two main arguments for that. The first one is that Debian does it better. There are some features which you find in Debian and which you won't find altogether in many other distributions, possibly not at all. So the first one, there are four of them. The first one, in my opinion, is package quality. So Debian has a focus on the quality of every single package in the archive. So I like to call it a culture of technical excellence which appears in various forms. So for instance, we have a clear definition in our EGOS document called the Debian policy of how a package should look like. So in that document, you find the definition of where any single file you might want to ship in a package should be installed, for instance, where you should put documentation, where you should put images, where you should put other kind of artworks. And this gives to users a sense of consistency through all the operating system, which is quality. A second form of this quality you can find in Debian is an extensive package testing. So every package is run through a set of an automatic tester called Lincoln, which actually checks whether your package adheres or not to the policy. And then we do a lot of other testing, like stress testing of package installation. So periodically, we test all the package in the archive to see if you can install or not install in all possible situations, trying to ensure that you will always be able to install a package provided its dependency are satisfied. And then we have periodic master build of all the packages in the archive. So in every single stable release of Debian, you have the guarantee that every single package in the archive can be rebuilt from scratch using the other package in the archive. And this is more important than why I think. Because what is the point of FreeSofter if the ability to change it and rebuild your own package is just theoretical? So unless you can really change a package and have the ability to rebuild it, well, then you have FreeSofter in some way, but you cannot really enjoy the benefit of it. For us, this is a very important quality point. And then we still have the criteria that a package maintainer or a team of people maintaining a package are generally expert in the package they maintain. That means that when you ask questions about the package, you can interact with people which know the details of the software and not only details of packaging. Imagine scientific software, for instance.  Finally, all packages in the Debian archive are equal. So there is no distinction about first class and second class packages. So the kind of support you get for a Debian package is the same, no matter what the package is. And all this is summarized quite well in the Debian release mantra, which is re-release when it's ready, which actually means that for us, what is more important is the quality of the packages, rather than some artificial debt that you might want to put on your release cycle. And so when I told you before that on the weekend of February 5th and 6th, we are going to release Debian squeeze, well, we hope we're going to do that. And I'm quite confident we will. But if the day before that we will find some release blocker, well, the rest assure that we will not release and fix that before being able to release. So this is the first point, package quality. The second point is, well, maybe quite obvious, but it is freedom. And here I mean software freedom because the social contact is still in effect and guarantees that there is a specific tie based on specific software freedom principles that tie together users and developers. And we have been doing that. We have been promoting the culture of C3 software since 1993. And Debian is free the bottom up. What does that mean? Well, all the software that you get via Debian, it's free. Firmware included started with squeeze. We moved away all the non-free firmware bits from the kernel to non-free. So by default in Debian, you will get only 100% free software. But not only that. Also the infrastructure we use to make Debian is completely free software. So in Debian, no one will accept to give users tools to do bug reports, for instance, which are not free. Nobody in Debian will accept to use a piece of our infrastructure like BuildDemon, which is not free. This is really not acceptable. And users in general are aware of this choice of ours and are happy about them and trust Debian not to betray those principles of free software that are written in our social contact. And all this in the ecosystem as a role of setting a very high bar for free software advocates. So Debian is a kind of a benchmark. If you see if you can do better or not than Debian in defending software freedom, well, this is an important role that Debian still play. Third reason is independence. And I care a lot about this. So what does it mean to be an independent project like Debian? Well, there is no single company which is actually behind Debian. So Debian is a community distribution but it's not associated to any single company. That means that all our means are donations of hardware or of money. Sometimes they come from company but they came from different companies. And most of the time come from users which actually want to support Debian and donate money to us. And everything else is a gift economy based on exchange of work among volunteers. This is very much remarkable. So think of all the, I use the term mainstream distribution, which is not really meaningful. But imagine the most popular distribution you can find out there. Well, most of them are one way or another run by companies or supported by companies, by specific companies. Debian is not the same. In Debian we are very much more independent from the need of gaining money of some company. And that means that people trust Debian choices not to be driven by profit. Fourth and last reason why Debian does it better is decision making. So a lot of people make fun of the way they can make decisions but it's not true that we vote on every single thing, actually. The basic criteria for deciding in Debian is what I like to call a do-work-racy. So do-work-racy means that if you are doing something, if you are responsible for something, as long as you work on it, you are free to decide to do whatever you want on that specific project area. Usually it is a package. So if you are responsible for a package, you can do whatever you want as long as you are working on it, okay? And the second point, which is a second class way of making decisions, is democracy. So when that fails, when there are conflicts, well, we might want to resort to democracy to take decision by a vote in the project. So what does that mean? Well, the reputation in the project follow works. So if you are someone well known in the project, that means that you are doing a lot of work for the well-being of the project. It means that there is no benevolent dictator in the project, not even me, I'm just a kind of coordinator of activities which happen in the project. And there are no imposed decision by who has money, by who has the infrastructure, or by who is employing people to work on Debian. So this is the first argument for me to say that you should care about Debian, because it plays a very important role in the free software ecosystem. And so I think that Debian should live long and prosper. Freedom and independence are very good, and I'm kind of scared at thinking at a distribution market in which every single distribution is run by companies. Because one day, their interest will clash with our interest. And we have seen recently the example of companies which used to be very good friends of free software, changing their mind on being bought by other companies and not being very good friends of free software anymore. Every reference to recent event is completely... Yes, absolutely, a science fiction, I would dare to say. And also having Debian around is a kind of... It's a good example even for distribution run by company to actually invite those companies to enable every passing day more and more their distribution to run their own boat. Okay, so this was my first argument for the relevance of Debian. The second one, if you are a more pragmatic type of guy, type of people, it's Debian is the root of a high tree of derivative distributions. So what is a derivative? Well, a derivative essentially saw a very big software project in which you apply software freedom to a whole distribution.  So this is the idea of a derivative distribution. And derivatives have changed the game of software distribution in the past, I would say, 10 years. Because with derivatives, the focus of a software project moves to customization. So all the people, power you will need in your derivative distribution will be on customizing it for your specific goal. Everything else you can reuse from the distribution you descend from. And if this is done properly, that is very good. Everybody wins. Why? Well, derivative gain a lot in terms of work they can reuse. This is a clear advantage. And the so-called mother distro gains a lot in terms of the public it can reach out to via the derivative distribution. And this is true both for users you can reach out to and also for contributors you might be able to get. So the idea of derivative distribution is very good. And Debian has been chosen as a mother distribution, let's say for a loss of derivative distribution. So if you look at DistroWatch, you will find like 120 distribution which have been based on Debian. Some of them are not alive anymore. But those that teleport here are essentially whole alive and kicking. And so that shows that Debian is a nice choice of a base if you want to create your own derivative. So why it is so? Well, first of all we have quite some guarantee on the packages, like you have guarantee of quality and you have guarantee of licensing assurance. So all the review work which has been done on those packages by Debian is something you can reuse for free. This is the beautiful of the software after all. And then you have a very solid by system. You have a lot of packages. So we have seen like 30,000 packages in Debian. And finally Debian is not necessarily customized for any specific use. So we call it the universal operating system, meaning that we try to address various kinds of needs, trying not to be too specific on any of them. So it means that it's a very good base for customization. So starting from Debian you have quite some freedom in customizing it for your specific need. Let's see as a specific example. So there is this minor distribution you might have heard of called Obuntu. And its distribution started in 2004 by Canonical with initially was a target user, was a desktop user. So the motto was Linux for human beings. And they've been very successful in that. And it's a Debian derivative. It's very popular. So if you look at popularity contest data it seems that they have something like 10 times the user base of Debian. So it's very difficult to count the number of user of a software project because on that basis it's something like that. Historically there have been a division in main and universe in Obuntu with the main part being worked on mainly by the, let's say like the corporation part but it's more blurry than that. And the universe part being both worked on by the community. And it's heavily customized in the main part of the distribution. Actually they have quite some packages which have been forked for Debian. So the package is a little bit different. And it's very much more close to Debian in the universe part. And on the right you see the number of packages which populate on Ubuntu release. So this is for I think links but they haven't changed substantially after that. So you see that three quarter of the archive so 74% are unmodified Debian packages. You have like 18% of packages which are Debian packages patched and then which then become part of the Ubuntu distribution. And then you have a 7% of packages which are not packaged in Debian and which ends up in Ubuntu. So this is a representative example in terms of our derivative works. So there are quite a lot of packages which come directly from the distribution you choose to base your work on. But it's this part, so the part which came unmodified from Debian is way higher in other derivative distribution. And that's normal if they have less people power to customize distribution they tend to have more unmodified Debian packages. So what does that mean? Well, it means that if you are running a Debian derivative or a derivative of a derivative or a derivative of a derivative well chances are that you very much depend on Debian. And this is so even if your distribution doesn't tell you so. So this is the second reason why you should care about Debian because like it or not you depend a lot on the work which is being done on Debian. So the question is how we can make all this sustainable, fun and useful for free software in general and for all involved parties. Well, the situation is getting worse. So people are starting to create a derivative distribution from Ubuntu and it is just normal that it is the case. And what does this mean is that we are seeing today a new way of distributing software to people and it's what I call a new software distribution pipeline. So since a few years ago it was something like this. So we used to have upstream software auto on the left then we have some in-between distribution like Debian or Red Hat or any other distribution which was there like 10 to 15 years ago and then we had users on the right. And there was a kind of double flow of information from one direction and the other. So from left to right you see software which flows from who creates the software to users on the right. And in the other direction we have bug report and patches. And now the thing has changed dramatically and we have way more in-between links. So you have different distribution which use the work from each other and at every single step in that chain every single link in that chain you can have users. Okay? That is wonderful because we get way, way more users than we were able to get before. So at every single link you might get new users because you have customized the distribution for a specific need which wasn't addressed before. And we have more high balls which are able to swallow more bugs and we have also a lot more potential contributors. So at each single link we might get potential contributor. But we must be very careful because all this must be sustainable for every single link in the chain and should benefit free software as a whole. Because I don't know what is the case for you but in Debian we do this not for the benefit of Debian but in general for the benefits of free software. So that is what we care about. So what are my let's say golden rules for making all this sustainable? So the first of it of them is keeping in mind that free software is actually bigger and more important than every single link in the chain. It's more important than Debian, it's more important than the Dubuntu, it's more important than every derivative distribution or every single project out there. And then the two rules are that at each single link in the chain we should care about giving back because if we don't give back a single patch which is contributed in a specific link well then the contribution is lost. It stays there and it doesn't flow up to the left and it does not benefit other people. The second point is giving credit. So paying attention that users are very much aware of where the work they benefit from comes from. And this is true at every single level. It's true also for Debian that should be very careful in explaining to their users where the free software they use comes from. So summarizing, there was three main messages I had to tell you in this talk. So my main argument is that you should care about Debian for two reasons. The first one is that it plays a very important role in the free software ecosystem and it's kind of remaining one of the very few distribution doing that. And Debian is also the root of a huge tree of derivative distribution and all of them benefit from work being done in Debian. So if you are a user of one of these distribution you benefit from the work and you should care about the wellbeing of Debian. And finally, we all need to realize that free software is better served by collaboration and code exchange along those three of derivative distribution. So I try to keep this rather short. So I will welcome every question on these topics or any other Debian-related topic you might have. Thank you. Now, I fully agree with you on the importance of Debian but I'm thinking what we're seeing now is sort of a decline of an individual Debian release simply because the release schedule is a fairly long one and there's a number of projects that are on such quick release cycles adding features that users really want that by the time a Debian package actually moves to stable that software is essentially almost obsolete which has a lot of people ending up if they're actually running Debian, running sort of a hybrid between stable and back ports or something of that nature. But what you said here as in Debian being this root of a boatload of other distributions isn't that something that you should reinforce even more strongly in the public image of Debian because I heard you made this point here in this talk but everything that I've seen in that regard on the Debian website proper was one remark saying Ubuntu is based on Debian. And maybe you want to extend that message a little bit further so more people actually get that point. So I agree. Let's start from this last point which enables me showing the first of two spam slides I have available. So we are actually running right now two initiatives related to that. So starting I think six months ago we created what we call the derivative found desk which is a point where a discussion list and a forum and some resources for all Debian derivative distribution to actually meet and discuss how to exchange code among them. But what is more in line with what you just said that we are running right now a census of existing Debian derivative and this I think it's the first step in actually doing what you're proposing. So in communicate more clearly the role of Debian with respect to all these derivatives and being clear about this kind of all Debian is playing. So yes, I totally agree with that and we are trying to fix this. Regarding the first part of your question. So I agree. In fact, what I think is that it's not a single release of Debian which is kind of diminishing in importance but there are new target of users which not care much about stable releases. So that explains the interest in rolling releases which is becoming I have the impression more and more relevant. So a lot of people are using this kind of distribution but don't forget that actually Debian has one such rolling release. So actually I think we have been kind of the first one in having it, it's called testing. It's not meant to be a final user release but it's actually pretty good. So if you use it on your laptop you will find that you have a very good mixture of fresh software and software which has been tested a little bit anyhow. So it has been stayed around for at least 10 days without people noticing serious bug in it. So we do have one such release and I think we should look into how to use it more and how to make it more suitable for final users. So but I don't think it's actually the importance of stable release which have diminished but more than there is a whole new class of Linux users which cares about this kind of very fresh software and something we didn't have I say 10 years ago. So I mean I disagree that there's this whole thing about the stable release cycle. It is a long cycle and looking at the history here it was a one year cycle up until about midway through and then it's been three long. The average is two years for the past four years. And in fact having worked in an ISP that's actually pretty good. A two year release cycle is something that is reasonably workable. So long as the finished product is pretty stable and you can do your own ports to change just the things you need to do. So Ubuntu has come along and added their LTS stuff for servers. I'm not entirely sure whether or not a stable release every six months is a goal that we want because other people are doing that. So I agree with the, so the fact is that there are different kind of users. So the user you just took as an example an ISP is a user which is perfectly served by stable release which came out every two years. And that's fine. Exactly, so I think we in the last 10 years we saw a rise of desktop user, in Linux desktop user. We should be all happy for that, about that. And we just need to figure out how to best address their needs which are not necessarily the same of stable users. So I agree with that. And to some degree that people want to get stuck or prepared to run testing or unstable are doing it. And if they're not prepared to do that, they don't need to go into it. And that will be done. Yeah, sure. This is actually more of a comment than a question. I feel that Debbie and one thing you've done badly is that you've undersold the testing distribution. Most users can use it. It is perfectly safe even non-technical people. There's a big bladder made about releases. Everybody beats it up and says the people say it's taking two years, three years, four years. It really doesn't matter. People can use testing straight away. They don't have to wait for the stable distribution. Yes and no. So I might agree that we undersold them but because we tend to be conservative in that. We prefer not to tell people that something is pretty good and risking that we eat the corner which is not that good than the other way around. So we chosen to stay on the conservative side and not saying that. But in fact, you are right. Testing is a pretty good distribution but it has some glitches which make it not yet suitable for final users. For instance, you have no guarantee that you'll have a Debian installer which is working every single day to install Debian testing. So it might happen that in a specific day you try to install Debian testing and you are not able to do that because the release of Debian installers has not in sync with the testing distribution. So there is some interesting fix in that. So there is an internal project in which some people have interest which is called CUT, constantly usable testing. It's not something we have committed to release or anything yet but there is interesting doing that and the idea of that project is actually fixing those glitches which make testing a not a suitable distribution every single day. So yes, it's fairly good but there are some issues that makes it not yet entirely suitable for every possible use. So for more corporate market, we still have servers that are surge. They're not supported. I think we've got about two months before they're pretty much all gonna be gone at least the public ones. But the Debian release cycle, I mean, one of the things I'm hearing from other people is that the Debian release cycle is too frequent. Of course using, I know, of course using REL as the major example with REL 5 was, for all the back ports might be needed at the end of a Debian release cycle, REL 5 has been just about unusable without a similar system as similarly. So yeah, that was more a comment than a question, I guess, but we have been working on trying to have some sort of LTS support for Debian as well. So it's not there yet for squeeze but the security team is working on that. And right now the security lifetime you could expect for a Debian distribution is something like three here and a half. So this is the time span you can expect right now. So to reach levels of other LTS distribution we just need to add one year and a half of support. And we are actually working on that so it's not there yet.  And it really sort of interesting there's this dynamic tension all the time. And what you find is anytime somebody is building or deploying a new system they always want the latest, freshest, greatest bits because they know that once it goes into production and it's locked down they won't be able to touch it again forever. And so the idea of going out the door based on something that isn't reasonably fresh I mean, you want some confidence in it but if it isn't reasonably fresh it feels like you're sort of behind the curve before you even start. On the other hand, once it's out you really do want this really long extended support cycle if you can get it. And so this is the thing that I think every distribution struggles with and it's why I've been so intrigued in watching this set of Debian derivative distributions to see which ones sort of bias in different directions. One direction on the other. Yeah, because I think at the end of the day it's probably always going to be impossible to make everybody completely happy but it's intriguing that there's so many of us with very different objectives who all sort of find some sweet spot to live in in and around the Debian ecosystem. Thanks Peter. Just like to clarify something here in my humble opinion it's not just the users it's also the relationship that Debian has with their respective upstream projects. Debian relies very, very heavily on fixes from upstream even though there's a security team working on it, et cetera, et cetera. Red Hat or Novell for their long-term distributions they can pay people to fix bugs in the software. Debian doesn't have that luxury so it strongly relies on upstream to fix issues. And if you have an upstream project that says well folks you're using a branch that we've considered obsolete for a year and a half then Debian has a bit of a problem and that's just something that needs to be addressed. Of course if you have like a derivative distribution that caters to this and that perhaps even does have a commercial organization behind it that can pay people to fix these things then great. But I think Debian by itself has a hard time kind of delivering on that sort of expectation. So I agree but this for me is the real challenge. So as I said in the beginning of the talk we are kind of one of the few remaining community store among the most popular distribution. And we are completely volunteer driven and this for me is a real challenge. Whether we can face or not the market with this difference that we don't have the luxury of paying people. This is quite exciting but you know what I think that overall we are doing pretty well. Because I mean the Debian maintainers know the software they are packaging and so they can maintain some code back port fixes or this kind of stuff. Of course it's not the same firepower of big companies but considering the difference I think we're doing pretty well. I have two things to say. First is a compliment. I actually like that I always know what state that Debian is in. Regardless of what I install or what I uninstall it usually always goes back to a relatively stable state even in testing which is fantastic not many other distributions are able to stick to that. Thanks I forward the comment to the Debian community. However on that topic of the testing I was wondering if it was possible to perhaps have a couple supported so you could perhaps do a yearly release based on the testing software and once it's been tested for a while in that somewhat stable testing release it can then go from the somewhat stable to the very stable if people really want to be stable. So I start observing that stable testing is kind of oxymoron. It sort of is but you get what I'm saying. But yeah I get what you're saying and in fact within the discussion of this CUT project which is being going on there are two models which are being proposed and which are being evaluating. One model is purely rolling distribution in which you just need to fix some glitches of the testing distribution and another one is the idea of taking periodic snapshots. So finding some moment in which you have some guarantees out of the current testing you take a snapshot of that and six months later you take another snapshot. So that's what? Because 10 days is not long. Yeah absolutely. So that's kind of one of the idea which is being discussed but it's not there yet. So if you are testing into that you might want to join the initiative because we pretty much need people that are willing to look into that. And you know having an impact in Davion is quite easy after all. You just need to show that you're able to do things and you will be able to have an impact on the project. Hi. Where is it? I realize it's a bit of old history at this point but the OpenSSL issued that Davion had a couple of years back now. And as Davion becomes more of a, there are more downstream distributions pulling from Davion and bugs like that can affect downstream users. I was wondering what sort of infrastructure there is in place for downstream distros and users to address that. So the problem on that, so there is not much infrastructure in place. The infrastructure we have is that all our services are open and usually have some sort of standardized interface so it's relatively easy to hack and use them. The problem in that respect is that among all the derivative distribution we have had based on Davion the only very big one is Ubuntu. So the first moment in which this problem of which interface we use among the two has arrived only with Ubuntu. So we are facing now the problem that we need to make things work well at that boundary and maybe figure out together with other derivative distribution how to make things work better for them. So this is exactly what we're trying to do with the derivative from this but in some sense it is a novel problem because thus far the other distribution were kind of 99% relying on Davion and modifying one person of package and they just kept the changes and didn't care about that because there is no real need to actually in their change much code they were just pulling and not really pushing back. So this is kind of a novel problem we are trying to attack right now. Hi, my question is along the similar lines. What's being done to ensure that bugs and that make their way upstream having all these derivatives of derivatives and that sort of thing. So I think it's been kind of interesting situation once more in the relationship with Ubuntu because we have been bequals complaining that we are not giving back to us and that made us realize that maybe we are not doing everything properly ourselves with respect to upstream. So that's a pretty exciting time in which we need to realize that every single link in that same should do the same and should are there to pushing changes back to upstream. Regarding what we have done and what we have been doing practically well for us it's a standard practice to forward bugs upstream. So it's nothing novel it's something we have always been doing and then of course you have no guarantee that every single maintain is going to do that but let's say the social pressure for doing that is there, is absolutely there. Yeah, that's true. So at your right. Can I just offer my congratulations to yourself and any other Debrion contributors in the room on the work that's being done to remove non-free software from the kernel. It's a fantastic achievement. And also to those which are not in their own. And by the way, this is a very nice example of collaboration with upstream. So the Debian kernel team has been working for like the past two or three release cycle in doing that. So we were being kind of hammered by others saying look you have not putting away bits from the kernel non-free bits but okay we made the exception for two release cycles but the kernel team especially has kept on working on that together with upstream kernel and now it's done. So it's been a very nice example. Yeah, let me also say a word of thanks for the update mechanism which you put in place. Which makes it possible for- The update? The updating mechanism, apt which you put in place makes it possible for somebody non-technical like me to update for 12 years and have nothing broken at all. Questions? It's a bit of a noob question. Is there any way you could just quickly describe what the upstream projects look like? What do you mean the upstream project? Well is it- Ah, the upstream. So that's something which I'm really excited about as well. So that's an initiative run started by some open-source people in particular by Vincent Onth. I'm not sure I can pronounce it properly. Which actually I met at some free software conference a few months ago and said you know what? We have been trying to do some cross distro work on application installer. So meaning the package manager but some kind of package manager which is more suited for final users. So a kind of package manager which is the granularity of applications rather than a granularity of packages. Like I want InScape. I don't care if it is split in three packages. I don't care if I need to install a library or something like that. Something like Software Center which we have in Debian which is in Ubuntu N. So the idea was to work on that and to actually try to do that in a collaborative manner cause different distribution so that we can share package metadata. Like screenshots, like tags are all stuff that can be easily shared among different distributions. So what happened is that they had a meeting and the meeting was attended by people from Debian, from Ubuntu, from Magia, from OpenSUSE and so on and so forth. And they worked on that. They adopted quite some Debian technology like APT, XabianIndex, like DevTags, like ScreenshotDebianNet and they are doing to create a software project to put together those technologies and technology from other distribution to actually have a, let's say, a user interface for package selection which is suitable for end users and which tries to share data from all distributions. So that's kind of the idea. And it's pretty exciting, not only the idea but actually the way in which it has been worked on in a cross-distribution manner. To my, the best of my memory is the first large-scale example of cross-distribution collaboration. So it's pretty exciting. I'm sorry, just one spam slide remaining. So if everything goes well, we are nine days from the release of Debian Squeeze and on the Debian Wiki, you will find a list of release parties and one is missing in Brisbane. So... I'm sure you'll agree that it's great to have such an authoritative speaker on such an influential topic. So join with me to thank Stefan.


For more videos on people's struggles, please subscribe to our YouTube channel. Hello and welcome to People's Dispatch. From the 18th to the 24th of October, Congolese as well as Africans both in the continent and across the world are marking Breaking the Silence Congo Week. Now this is a week, this is a week of celebration, this is a week of commemoration, a week of events which are dedicated to covering both the crisis in the Congo that has been going on currently over the past many decades as well as a spirit of resistance that is so important to the kind of movements that are happening there and this is like I said not just an event or a series of events or a movement in one country but for the entire continent and today to talk more about this we have with us Kambale Musawuli who's an analyst with the Center for Research on the Congo. Thank you so much Kambale for joining us. Thank you. Kambale, could you first start with maybe talking about what is the say defining spirit behind the Congo week because like you've mentioned itself it started in 2008 it's been 12 years it's marked across the world so usually what is the main message that activists like you scholars researchers students or together it's a kind of present during this week. The spirit behind Congo week is to make sure that the world know that in this time we have about over 60 million people of Congolese who have died but more importantly the how can I say the potential of the DRC is something that's hidden so we always talk call it like breaking the silence Africa best Africa's best kept secret the reason why we say that is one people do not know the tragedy of the Congo and people do not know the potential and those those are the two extremes for the Congo starting in 2008 by students saying we will share with our communities what to do and today after 12 years I'm still amazed at how many people around the world continue to observe this week and our goal is the liberation for the ERC you know the people of the Congo have been in the struggle to control their own affairs since 1885 and the struggle is ongoing up until today for the total liberation of the Congolese people to transform the entire African continent. So Kambali you talked about 1885 and there is obviously there's still the history of Belgian colonialism and even before direct Belgian colonialism there's a history of the brutal route direct single-person rule by Leopold himself and of course after that there's a history of exploitation especially for the mineral and natural wealth of the Congo which was where in which almost all major Western players have been involved as well and on the on the other hand there is also the recognition by the resistance from the very early when history itself how important the Congo is to not only to African liberation and global liberation for that matter so could you maybe take us through both these strands one of the kind of planned exploitation that has been happening and also maybe talk a bit about the kind of larger perception of resistance as well that has been very key to the Congo. The Africa we know today was shaped by the so-called Berlin conference that took place from 1884 to 1885 so Western nations sat down in Berlin to decide not just the covering up of the African continent but who will take control of the land the size of Western Europe they didn't give it to a country they gave it to one man King Leopold II and he ran it as his personal property from 1885 to 1908 and during his rule we had extraction of resources particularly ivory and also rubber rubber was essential for the technology of the time the tires of the cars the tires of the bicycles there was a boom in the automobile industry at the time and know the bicycles at the time but during that exploitation Congolese people died right they were subjected to inhumane conditions mutilated killed it is estimated that about 10 to 15 million Congolese died during that period and there hasn't been accountability even for that you know it's a crime that can be compared to what happened during World War I and even World War II with the Holocaust but most people do not even know that 10 to 15 million Congolese people died but whenever the brutal regime or Leopold ended mainly due to a global mobilization of people like George Washington Williams a civil war veteran who actually went to the Congo so was happening and advocated for the liberation of the Congo and the Congo was happening in the Congo crimes against humanity is actually the one who coined that term and that term was coined in the case of the Congo but there were others who mobilized during that time to bring an end to it so after the global mobilization to stop King Leopold's rule Congo was given to the Belgians not to the Congolese Belgians continue to rule the Congo from 1908 up to 1960 but during that period there were many resistance taking place you had Simon Kimbango called him a community organizer who was mobilizing spreading even pan-African message he had Marcus Govino's pepper during the time in the early 1910s distributing it and calling on Congolese to take control of the lander and resources during that period unfortunately the Belgians saw him as a threat to the regime and they put him in jail for 27 years he actually died in jail and many others continued but this period is very important for the African continent while Congolese are struggling against Belgian colonialism seeing how their resources is being exploited the uranium are being taken out of the Congo in the during World War II and was used to bomb Yoroshima Nagasaki seeing all of that exploitation during that time they themselves decided to be engaged in a continental campaign and that continental campaigns stem from all the young Africans some of whom participated in the Fifth Pan-African Congress in 1945 in Manchester came back on the African continent mobilizing one of them Kwame Kruman who became the head of state of Ghana in 1957 and of course you had the Nyerere and the others also mobilized during that time and they called in this period was independence now we cannot leave on the African continent and try to unite when we don't control our lander resources and that strategy was shared with Patrice Lumumba who attended a very important conference in 1958 in Ghana the All-African People's Conference when Patrice Lumumba Gaston Diomi and Joseph Ngalula visited Ghana during that period met Fanon, met Padmore, met many others who participated during this meeting they were clear now why they needed to go back on the ground to mobilize for independence as they returned to the Congo they didn't return alone all the Africans came with them you had Chadians you had Cameroonians you had Central Africans particularly André Blouin she was actually working very closely with Patrice Lumumba she's actually the one who wrote the Independence Day speech that Patrice Lumumba read on June 30 1960 and her engagement during the time helped lift up the voice of the Congolese women she is known to have mobilized over 45,000 Congolese women to join the alliance of the Mouvement National Congolais and the Partis solidaires african and they are the one who won the independence the independence election in May 1960 but I'm sharing all of this to say that if he wasn't for Pan-Africanism Congo wouldn't have become independent it took an active effort of young Africans even coming to the Congo working with Congolese through an ideology that was very clear take control of the land take control of the resources exploit these resources for the benefit of the people and transform their entire african continent and this is the plan that came from Cruma so we Patrice Lumumba mobilizing and organizing and becoming successful that is the team becoming successful getting independence in the Congo that didn't sit well with the US president and that president at the time was Dwight Eisenhower who in july in august of 1960 when you read the record I think he was either july or august of 1960 the national security council record shows that Dwight Eisenhower told his CIA staff who participated his advisors were participating in this meeting that Patrice Lumumba needed to be eliminated he had just taken power in less than a month and there was already a call to kill him and unfortunately on july 17 1961 Patrice Lumumba was brutally murdered by the CIA Belgium and Congolese sarcophant this period pretty much stole the future of Africa because there is a book by Justin Podol that looks into the situation in the Congo the intro of his book is fantastic he actually made me cry he he writes a speech that Patrice Lumumba is making on june 30 of 2020 what would Patrice Lumumba say today remembering the struggle of the Congo how Congo has not developed a transform itself that it made me realize even much more something that many Congolese know that if Lumumba stayed alive and was able to continue his mission Pan-Africanism would have had a stronger foothold on the African continent and have Congo as the heart of the engine for the whole transformation of Africa so the death of Lumumba was really stealing the future of the African continent and when we look at what's happening on the African continent today one can guess why Africa is where it is and I always argue you know think about Congo's size size of Western Europe think about its wealth in estimated 24 trillion dollars which is the US and Europe GDP combined think about its potential of all the resources that it has from Kabul to Colton I mean the green environmental movement today cannot exist without the Congo Congo holds 40% of Africa French water reserves Congo has a young population 30 to 40 million young Congolese we have an 81 million population where half of the population is under the age of 18 this youth can completely transform the African continent if they're able to go on the right forces they're organizing forces on the ground and also have allies on the outside to put pressure on the negative forces against the Congolese people absolutely right Kamala in this context you mentioned Colton which is of extreme extraordinary importance today because of its use in the entire tech industry in our day-to-day life so much so especially in the past 20 to 25 years could we talk about for instance how especially western countries western corporations have been sort of uh say conducting their activities in the country I mean from 1996 to present the struggle of the Congo has been who's going to control its resources and for whose benefit in 1996 Colton was discovered in DRC in 1996 the war started and there is a media narrative of what happened in the Congo toppling of a dictator uh displacement of population and sometimes they may snack in the centers of ethnic conflict that this is the reason why this conflict has started but on a very serious note over six million Congolese people have died due to this conflict and we can even argue that we will never know how many Congolese people have died you know millions have died the number I'm quoting is a study of the mortality a mortality study from the international rescue committee right that's from 1998 to 2007 5.4 million Congolese have died at a rate of 45 000 people dying every month 2007 is way far from today so we know millions have died in this conflict due to this greed of or control of resources that's needed for modern day technology and for us who understand what capitalism does that you look at Congo in the chain it's clear get the resources at a cheap price and even if it means human cost it won't matter and that brings me to Bolivia you know I'm thinking about the Tesla CEO Elon Musk who says we will call whoever we want to call when he was speaking around lithium in Bolivia they have been doing calls in the Congo to take control of Congo's cobalt, Congo's coltan, Congo's gold, Congo's tin and all the different resources that we have copper and so on right and what the Congolese people have been fighting to stop it is killing beyond what the media narrative will share because in these past two decades Congolese have been resolute in fighting the oppression that they face right they face a brutal regime of their local elites who control the state they're facing Congo's neighbors you know their neighbors Randon and Uganda who are US allies on the so-called war on terror these two countries have invaded the Congo twice in 96 and 98 and unleashed the death of the millions of Congolese today they're facing multinational cooperation the Glencore the Boundary I mean the United Nations have published numerous reports citing names of corporations that are illegally pilfering Congo's resources you have the World Bank and IMF especially in the period of COVID have given Congo over a billion dollars how are we going to pay for that and they're putting to policies that's literally affecting the Congo things such as they are responsible for writing the mining laws of the DRC they are responsible for writing the forestry laws of the DRC these have been are being reviewed have been reviewed but initially they're the one who set out policies that allow for mining corporations to come and get access to Congo's lands at wholesale and then you have the another unilateral institution that I always mentioned is the United Nations which is very complex where you look at a secular council where two members of the secular council the United States and the United Kingdom are supporting nations destabilizing the Congo and they do not do anything to stop it so when you look at that and you know as a young African and look at you as policy toward Latin American countries particularly Venezuela you wonder where is the moral right to even say anything about democracy anywhere when they have supported invasions of the DRC causing deaths of millions they have backed and installed the theaters such as Mobutu who stayed in power for 32 decades they have assassinated democratically elected leaders such as Patrice Lumumba who came from the aspiration of the Congolese and not only that in 1884 or 85 they even participated in the carving up of the African continent of the so-called Berlin conference and in 85 they signed the act of Berlin on stating that they will support King Leopold they were the bikers of King Leopold the second to get access to the land so they recurred on the African continent particularly the Congo is something that anyone who say that they have no moral rights to talk about democracy in the world because of the destabilization they have caused in the Congo absolutely and Kambali in recent time and you talked about also the long traditional persistence and especially again over the past 20 years especially during the term of Joseph Kabila despite the heavy repression there has been wave after wave of resistance especially by the youth as you pointed out so could you also talk a bit about the kind of resistance that continued applying pressure on Kabila even when internationally he was celebrated or he was say accepted by the international community. Indeed and even during the war we shall be very clear the reason why the death toll is so high is because they cannot destroy the spirits of the Congolese people who are continuing to fight for change in the country some have created in some of the regions local resistance against the rebel militias most of the time they are actually at number at gun but this is also happening and then you also have a very vibrant youth who in 2011, 2015, 2018 they are stood in front of the instrumental violence of the Congolese government it's this military and it's police young Congolese know how many bullets are in the AK-47 why whenever they're in the protests and the police start shooting they don't shoot with rubber they shoot live bullets so they hide and count how many bullets left in the gun and then come out again protesting many young Congolese have died protesting the brutal regime of Kabila who took power in 2001 after the death of Laurent Kabila and he did not want to leave power after two terms of his presidency and that precipitated many protests the one that I want people to remember is the Telemah uprising the Telemah uprising started in January of 2015 when on January 19th 2015 a major protest was called by opposition leaders the population went out when they got to the point of protest there was no politicians around some people stopped going home by the student or the University of Kinshasa to start rallying the population and the numbers grew and the numbers grew the numbers were so big that the state got scared and they did what they always do they shut off the internet they shut off text messaging and they even shut off phone calls direct calls to people but the city was shut down by the youth of Kinshasa for two weeks demanding that the Congolese government does not pass a law in their senate calling for a census before presidential election which they saw was an attempt to delay the presidential election that resistance of two weeks so many young Congolese people died and we may not know the numbers yet in March of that year a mass grave was found in the capital city of Kinshasa with the bodies of 400 young Congolese I argue these bodies are the bodies of young Congolese and the Congolese government has refused to investigate the death other the bodies that were found during that time and our resistance continued even in 2018 many unfortunately were killed Luke Kulula was killed in Goma you are Rosichi Manga who was a professor and a father who was actually shot in front of a church while he was protecting protesters within a church enclosure he was shot and killed she was also shot inside of a church and the reason I'm mentioning churches is during the protest churches became the safe heaven of many protesters they were using it as a space for mobilizing or organizing and most protests usually started from the space so the military and the police did not care why you were organizing they came in with guns shot up protesters and many died but they the energy of the youth the spirited they had that's why I say no as we speak today we say that Kabila is no longer president but he's still control many as the constitution people may see it as the Congolese people did not succeed I would say no there are things that we succeeded on there was a man who refused to leave power and it took blood sweats and feet of the Congolese in the streets to stop a brutal regime from from staying in power longer than they're supposed to but the struggle is not over as now we are looking into what's happening in Nigeria seeing also the same protest happening there this morning I was looking at the news I'm seeing this also happening in Guinea there are protests also happening there Côte d'Ivoire is happening that in this pandemic from the United States all the way to India going into even the Congo the people are saying that we have two pandemic one COVID-19 and two a people's revolution where people want to determine their own affairs when people want to have a say in the decision-making process so these protests happening from George Floyd to now and South in Nigeria and the Telemah uprising in the Congo is a clear determination to me a clear indication to me that the people of the world are slowly but surely uniting for change so that we can all control our affairs in our countries thank you so much Kambale for speaking to us thank you that's all we are time for today keep watching People's Dispatch


Thank you for listening in to this project report for the CNI Fall 2021 membership meeting. I'm Emily Farrell, the Library Partnerships and Sales Lead at the MIT Press, and this presentation, Progress Towards Opening the Monograph, the MIT Press Director Open, will give you an overview of the Press' major initiative to open our monographs program in 2022. The MIT Press was established in 1962 and publishes books and journals at the intersection of science, technology, art, social science and design, very much in line with the research strengths of MIT itself. There's an interdisciplinary focus in our programs, an interest in distinctive design, the essence of which is captured well by the press colophon, which you can see here, designed by Muriel Cooper. Our program is now 250 books a year or more that includes monographs as well as a growing list of trade books, 40 journals, textbooks, reference works, and other initiatives and collaborations, including the MIT Press Reader, MIT Kids Press with Candlewick Press, and the development of the Knowledge Futures Group. The MIT Press has a mission to lead by pushing the boundaries of scholarly publishing in active partnership with the MIT community, and aligned with MIT's mission to advance knowledge in science, technology, the arts, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21st century. Open Access is in clear alignment with this mission, and we've been experimenting with Open Access in different forms for two decades. Our journals program now includes eight diamond OA journals, four gold OA journals, and we've worked in different capacities with open books through funding from the Mellon Foundation for a recent collection of urban studies and architecture books, partnered with the Tome Initiative, and we've also worked together with the MIT libraries to open books. In the last two years, we've been making a concerted step towards finding ways forward for open books in a more comprehensive way. And books have presented a greater challenge than journals so far. Recognizing that conventional market models no longer sustain monograph publishing, we wanted to find a more open, equitable way forward. So we've developed this model, Direct to Open, with generous support from the Arcadia Fund. Direct to Open takes an incentivized library collective action approach to open our new monographs on publication, beginning in 2022, and that will be around 90 books per year. Throughout 2021, we've been working with the library community to come together to support opening our monographs. Libraries receive incentives as individual libraries and again access to our monographs archive of around 2,500 books as supporters and receive discounting on our trade books collection. The fees are distributed across libraries to reach our financial threshold. If multiple libraries participate than needed, we go above the goal, we distribute the fees. So getting into more of the details, what is Direct to Open? Direct to Open is a collective model, so we need libraries to work together to support this model to make it work. Working as a collective, it decreased costs for all. The models library-centered, we wanted to come up with a model that would move us away from book processing charges, which we know are inequitable. Partnering with a collective of libraries helps us make that shift away from book processing charges. The model is comprehensive. Previously, when we'd worked in different ways, either with book processing charges or through funding, we were opening individual titles or small subject collections. We wanted to build a model that would open our monographs program moving forward as a whole rather than choosing title by title and giving one book precedence over another. The model is also incentivized. We knew we needed to offer something beyond something to support for the common good. Not because we think that libraries aren't interested in investing in a model that's purely open access and supports the wider access to knowledge, but we do know that often the existing structures can get in the way, whether that's how money's siloed in a library, or the fact that standard ways of collections and acquisitions need to show a certain sort of return on investment that is not easy to show when you have a pure open access model. It's incentivized in that libraries are not only contributing to opening books, but they also gain the individual incentive of accessing the back file of monographs on our platform. It also includes a guarantee. So libraries that agree to participate in direct open, get access to the back file of monographs, and even even if we don't reach the threshold. So that means they still retain the incentive, even if the model doesn't reach the threshold in the first year. So the way the model works is libraries come together to pay a fee. We calculated this fee based on the size, type and budget of the institution. We wanted to make the model more granular so that even the smallest libraries would be able to afford the fees for the model. Libraries can choose to support the whole set of monographs. So around 90 books. We've also split it into two collections into a humanities and social sciences collection and a stem plus art and design. That way we had the option of or the opportunity to reach a partial threshold and open some books depending on the patterns of support for the collections. As I mentioned, the incentives that libraries then receive in becoming supporters or participating in direct open is access to a back file of monographs throughout all the way through to the end of 2022. That's around 2500 books. So returning that access on as soon as libraries commit so libraries that are already participating in direct open already have access to those books, and it includes books all the way through the end of 2021. So it's very, it is very current content. If director open is not successful, libraries don't have to pay the fee but still receive access to the content for 2022 through the back file content through 2021. We're also offering our trade books collection in a separate collection that is still under a standard sales model and participating libraries receive additional discounting on that model as an incentive. We've also set up the model from the beginning to cascade such that if we receive contributions above the threshold, those fees are redistributed rather than the threshold increasing in some way. So once we reach financial goal, we then redistribute the fees. This is also an annual commitment. We didn't want to ask libraries to commit for more than one year because we know that this is a challenging time for library budgets, but we have offered libraries the opportunity to come in on the model up to three years at a cap fee. We were also lucky enough to have a contribution for the first year from MIT libraries that we're using to reduce the fees for masters, bachelor's and associates level institutions. Because of the model, we got to a place where we are able to offer a model that is comprehensive.  It is financially sustainable. We only open the content if the threshold is met. It provides a large value to libraries and incentives including the back large amount of back file content that goes up to very content current content. And also the fee cap. So in the cascading. So, over time, with more collective behavior, we hope to see lower fees for all libraries. Some of the challenges, because it's a new model and there are some. It is challenging to go all in is a big lift to get support for a new model across a large number of libraries. And it does ask for a culture culture shift towards collective action. It requires quite a lot of administrative work. We're working very closely with a large number of libraries and consortia. And it also asks and requires a lot more collaboration and coordination both internally and across libraries, but all of these things offer a lot of opportunity for us to. And some of the progress we made speaks to that. We've had a tremendously positive response from libraries. It's meant that we've increased the direct conversations we're having having with libraries, we've received a lot of feedback that went into developing the model. We've increased our consortia relationships and we are thrilled to have relationships in place with CRL know with Gwilla palsy big 10 academic alliance have come in to support director open. We're also working closely with CRK and in Canada call in Australia and just in the UK. We're currently, as I'm recording this mid November, halfway to our goal with a deadline of November 30 years. We've also seen half our commitments for three years, which gives us a lot of affirmation that this is a good direction and that there's a desire from the library community to support what we're doing over time. We'll be publishing a white paper soon that provides more details for the model, particularly with an interest for like for other university presses to look at what we're doing and to understand the details. And in cases interest there or the ability for them to use the model. And by the time you're listening to this, we will have made an announcement about what is coming after the deadline. We've seen a really fantastic array of institutions contribute to direct to open a large number at the PhD level, but also a good number of libraries that are masters and bachelor's institutions. We've seen a large percentage of our participating libraries come from the US, but increasing numbers of libraries from Europe, a good number of Canadian institutions particularly through the partnership with CRK and you in the UK and also a few from Australia. We've pleased with the progress that we've made so far in modeling director open. We predicted that it would take three years to reach our full threshold and to have already gotten halfway to the goal before the end of a whole year is really exciting and a very positive thing to see. If you'd like some more information, please do get in touch with me Emily Farrell. You can see my email address here, or you can also go to the website we have a lot of information up including the full fee table, a prospectus with some background and rationale for the model, as well as further information about the details of how the platform works, how we're working with discovery services and the other sorts of administrative details that that librarians will need. Thank you so much for listening. I hope you enjoyed the conference and I look forward to hearing from you.


Welcome! This is an exploration of how we might make VR and other social 3D spaces more inclusive and accessible. Illustrating considerations and best practices, encouraging the sharing of ideas, and illuminating innovative work being done in the field. Virtual reality means you're bringing your whole body into the experience. That introduces a host of considerations, but it also means a lot of opportunities. By continuing to push for standards of accessibility to be built into these experiences by default, we push technology further, discover new ways of interacting, and learn more about each other as human beings. We've discovered that when you design for inclusivity, you end up making things better for everyone. This experience is built as a series of hubs rooms exploring different aspects of accessibility. User interface, motion, controls, audio, app design, and testing. This room access the central hub you can always return back to. If you're new to hubs, welcome! We think you'll love it, but you may need to familiarize yourself a bit with the controls. In that case, you may find the controls room a good place to start, or you may want to read up on the documentation a bit. We've posted some links nearby this video. The most important control you may want to learn is that you now have the ability to fly. Hit G on your keyboard, or type slash fly into the chat, and you'll no longer be bound to the ground. This can help you get a bird's-eye view, get you around barriers if you're stuck, allow you to move through walls, etc. Lastly, while this experience itself aims to be inclusive, it is a passion project that has taken shape in the free time we have, and we recognize we've still got a long way to go. Your considerate feedback, ideas, links, and contributions to the space are welcome. Here's some ideas for how you can help. Provide interesting research, design content, think of activities, learn your skills in 3D modeling, texturing and animation, provide audio narration or sound effects, test the experience and suggest accessibility improvements, get feedback from online accessibility communities, speak, guide groups through the virtual space, participate in discussions, or act as virtual support Q&A staff during the festival, or just be an advocate for openness and inclusive technology in your own community. Special thanks for this experience. Go out to Dylan Fox of XR Access, Mara Gonzalez Franco at Microsoft, Thomas Logan of Equal Entry, Elgin Sky McLaren of Mozilla Hubs, Leon Victorio who helped us fix some of the many less than accessible aspects of this experience, and everyone who is willing to share their knowledge, research, and work they're doing in the realm of accessibility. Thanks for stopping by and enjoy MozFest.


It was a great experience coming into Kaiser Permanente Medical Dental Office. One of the great things about medical dental integration is that we're able to look and review the records. I saw with Mason that he was due for some vaccines, and so we were able to coordinate with the medical team at this office. And after his appointment and receiving his cleaning, he was able to go over to medical and receive those vaccines prior to leaving. That saved us from going to two visits to one, making it very convenient and easy for our family. As my colleague Dr. Huber just talked about, working with pediatric patients certainly has its challenges. Working with adults has its own demands as well. A patient of mine, Ronald, he came to the dental clinic a few months ago with a tooth that was really bothering him. And we determined that the tooth needed to come out. However, we need to take a pause in his treatment because his blood pressure was sky-high. It was so high that we were unable to proceed with his dental surgery in a safe manner. So I had my dental assistant take Ronald down the hallway to see Dr. Rasmussen. In this case, I was right here. Dr. Lee was able to collaborate with me, and very quickly we were able to come up with a plan. And I was able to get into his medical record, pulled up his blood pressure graph and looked at it, and we were able to talk about his medications and how he was taking them. With Julie, we were able to capture that she was taking a medication that could affect her jaw. You know, I always found that a team was much smarter than an individual, and I kind of think the same way about the medical profession. Having my dentist have access to my medical record as well as my dental record made me feel like I was being cared for by a team here at Kaiser Permanente. I went to medical school late in life, and before I was a doctor, I was a Kaiser Permanente patient. And I had a little girl with some pretty serious health issues, and they took care of her really, really well. And actually her whole medical issues, that's what spurred me to go to medical school and become a doctor. And when I got out, I thought, I want to go work for Kaiser Permanente. All innovation starts from the front line. When you layer in the power of a combined electronic medical record, you have a tool that enables the care team to really transform care in one site for patients when they come here. There's a certain wow factor for our patients here combining medical and dental care together. The integrated record is the enabler for us to really coordinate care because we know our patients, the information's there. I truly believe that integrated care is the future of healthcare. It's the fact that we direct all of our efforts towards the patient who's the center of our universe. Everything that we do is because of them. All of our decisions, the way we construct our facilities, how we staff our facilities, like this great facility here at Cedar Hills, it's based on the needs of the member, of the patient.


The federal government has reiterated its commitment to upgrading the Nigerian police force to a 21st century security organisation. According to State Minister Iman Suleimani Brahim, he emphasised the importance of police reform to rebuild confidence in personnel welfare and emphasise the nation's service. Mr President has negotiated a reforms committee, which I'm a member. So I've come here on my colleague and the ministry to show solidarity and also to make assessments so that we can be able to chart a solid foundation forward to our men, women and officers of the Nigerian police force so that they can know that to rebuild trust and restore confidence of the citizens in the force and actual reform. In the past, we've had reform papers that have never been implemented. So all you should expect with the Renewed Hope Police Agenda is a reform that would actually be implemented so that we can be able to actualise our dream of having a police force of the 21st century. The minister stated that President Bola expressed Renewed Hope for Police Agenda reform to achieve the 21st century vision of a unified and effective police force. We need to make assessments so that we can chart, you know, a solid foundation forward. A sustainable one so that in the next 500 years, we can build something that we can all be proud of. Our officers are doing so much solely too. I would like to applaud them, commend all the, you know, officers in the land for all they're doing, can assure them that, you know, under this government, under the presidency of Bola Metinubu, his excellency a lot will be done for the Nigerian police. You cannot separate the officers with the families. It's all one component. We'll see a lot of welfare reforms by the grace of God. So you get notified about fresh news updates.


Okay, this is a great pet playpen. It's got six panels. It's lightweight easy to assemble I had it together in about ten minutes It comes with suction cups so that it sticks to the ground and If you're outside it comes with little spikes that you can put in the corners so that it'll stick into the grass It just snaps in two pieces or top and the bottom just snaps in Don't kind of liked it. I put them in there and it seemed to like it It's got a little door on there so that he can come in and out lightweight easy to assemble This is the six panel one Very durable be good for outside. It's made of plastic And as you can see it Yeah, that little pen so a nice timeout pen when you run outside you put you in there


If you're Cleveland, what would you do in this situation? Keep them and build or figure out a way to ship them out? Well, I got time. We're playing good basketball right now. We're getting ready for the second half of the season in three to four weeks right here. He's playing well. The team's playing well. I don't really have to make those decisions right now. I evaluate the rest of the season. Let's see how it goes. We're a good basketball team. We're expected to play good basketball and be playoff contenders. No, so that should be the expectation for the Cleveland Cavaliers moving forward. And so I think they should evaluate what's going on after the season. Let's see what they get accomplished in the post-season and then we figure it out from there.