Do you know the new strike rules? Now when you get your first community guidelines strike, there is no penalty except for the video getting removed. What about the second strike? What about the third strike? Let me show you. On February 25th, 2019, is when the new policy takes effect where you will all get a one-time warning for the first content that violates the community guidelines and no penalty to the channel except for the removal of that content. But that's only one time that doesn't expire like in 90 days you get another warning. No, one time per channel for the lifetime of that channel. Right. Previously, not all strikes had the same penalty on your channel. For example, the first strike on videos would trigger a 90-day freeze on live streaming and the second strike would result in a two-week freeze on new video uploads. Now, the first strike after your warning, the first strike will result in a one-week freeze on your ability to upload any new content to YouTube, including live streaming and other channel activities and the strike will expire after 90 days or three months. The second strike will result in a two-week freeze so you can see the pattern. However, the third strike will terminate your channel. Thank you, Abby. Bye, Abby. Again, I have to stress, these are only community guideline strikes. There are a separate class of strikes called copyright strikes. So you can get two community guideline strikes and two copyright strikes, a total of four strikes, but your channel isn't terminated because you need to get three strikes in one of the categories to reach that action of termination. Now, you don't want to get to two and two, obviously, but just for those of you who are wondering, you need three in one category to get terminated. Community guideline strikes, if you click this link, take you to the YouTube policies section. How can you get a community guideline strike? One of the most surprising ways that we found that affects a lot of prank channels is if the people in your video believe they are in danger, that's enough to get a community guideline strike. They don't have to be in danger. You could be showing a toy gun, but if they believe that's a real gun, even for a moment, that's enough to trigger a community guideline strike. So guys, no more prank videos where you put the people into a belief of danger, obviously. Let me show you the quote from YouTube help if you don't believe me. Dangerous or threatening pranks, that lead victims to fear imminent physical danger or that create serious emotional distress in minors are not allowed. So no more believing that you're in danger. Come on, do fun pranks, like put extra soap into the shower so they never actually get clean because the water's always soapy. That's a fun prank, no danger involved. Also, you cannot do extremely dangerous challenges like detergent eating challenges. I've never actually seen someone try to eat detergent as a challenge, but you get the idea. That also means no jumping off buildings and into swimming pools or other dangerous activities. Otherwise, you risk getting a community guideline strike. Also important is this, spam misleading metadata and scams. Do not put large amounts of untargeted, unwanted or repetitive content, including comments and private messages in or around your videos. That means no more tag stuffing. Don't put tags in your description. Don't put things that you believe will get you higher search results by gaming the system. That's a definite no-no that will lead to community guideline strikes if YouTube catches you. There's another one that people like to use because they think they'll get more views by impersonation of a popular YouTuber. Do not try to make people believe you are someone else. Of course, parodies are fine. News about PewDiePie is fine. But as soon as you cross the line where you try to imitate a popular YouTuber like PewDiePie so people think you are him, that's impersonation. What if someone publishes your personal information? What can you do? Well, that's the privacy policy. If someone has posted your personal information or uploaded a video of you without your consent, you can request removal of content based on your privacy guidelines. And that will result in a community guideline strike for the channel who posted your personal content or you without your permission. The link to all this is down there in the description below if you wanna read it yourself as well as the link to this creator blog that officially announces this new copyright strike policy for community guidelines effective February 25th which is in about five days from now. What do you guys think about all this? Do you like the new policy where you get one warning for free? I think it's a fantastic idea that YouTube implemented this because I believe many people who get their first community guideline strike never do it again. And in fact, in the YouTube creator blog, they say statistically 98% of you never break our community guidelines. And for those of you that get your first strike, 94% of those who do receive a first strike never get a second one. So that means 94% of you will not get actually punished for getting your first community guideline strike if you don't ever get a second one. Do you agree with these statistics? Do you think this is the right move by YouTube? What else can they do to help make the ecosystem healthy and good for good actors? Tell me down there in the comments below what you think as well as share your best practices on where you draw the line of what kind of content you do and don't do. We actually saw a community guideline strike on a skit channel because in one of their videos, the one that got the strike, they were putting people into a perceived danger. So we fought for the channel because we actually thought it wasn't that bad but YouTube upheld the strike. So be very careful. Make sure the content that you upload has no possibility that someone will believe they are in danger in that video. So I hope this is helpful, Freedom Family. As you know, we all help each other grow together as a family. That is the spirit of freedom. So share your best practices and tips down there in the comments below. And what is our mission? Roll it. Freedom is a career path in video but not just video. Our mission is to help you build your career in this digital world. In game development, click that I to see how we are doing that in game dev. In music through our music factory brand. Click that I to see all about the music factory channel. All the music on the George show has been composed by Music Factory and we've been using it for many years. To use that music, just click the link down there in the description below to go to Music Factory's YouTube channel or website where you can download all the music for free. It's 100% free and safe to use. Why? Because we own it outright. So you'll never get a strike or community guideline even 10 years in the future because my promise to you is we'll never sell the music. We'll never license it to anyone else. That could change the rules. We own it so we set the rules and the rules are it's 100% safe to use. And we also have a crypto strategy. Did you know? Click that I to learn about how you can use crypto to create a new revenue stream for you where you can make money while you're sleeping and your computer is solving math problems while you are dreaming. I hope all this helps and I should introduce myself. Who am I? Say it with me. I am your Papa George, your George son pie and many other names you the beautiful freedom family has given me. I am the CEO and founder of freedom for freedom and the freedom family where we all help each other grow together as a family. I promised you 15 videos, 12 videos ago, 11 videos ago. Here is my playlist of the videos that I created so far for you freedom family in my 15 video promise. Click that I to see this playlist and watch any of these in case you missed any. I'll be adding this video to that playlist. So for now we have four plus this one is five out of 15. How many is that left? Math challenge, skill testing question 10. I'm actually teaching my daughter's math and something like 15 minus five is not so trivial for them yet. But hopefully it will be soon. Actually my daughter Avienda studying Arabic. Today we had a lesson in Arabic, not by me since I can't speak Arabic, but I realized Arabic is a very difficult language. Did you know they have 12 million words? 12 million words. How many does English have? Maybe 600,000. There are 20 times more words in Arabic than English. So if you're complaining that the English vocabulary is a little hard to learn all the words, just be glad you're not learning Arabic. Now I'm also told in the Chinese language there are probably as many characters to learn. So if you're learning Chinese, you also have a challenge. Maybe there's even more than 12 million symbols. If you speak Chinese, correct me down there in the comments below. How many characters are there in the Chinese language for Mandarin or Fukian or what they speak in Hong Kong? What they speak in Hong Kong, what is that? Wow, I should know these things. My wife is from Taiwan and she's trying to teach me Chinese and I'm just being a bad student. Bad church, bad church. 我会说一点点中文, so that means I can speak a little bit of Chinese. 我们帮到加拿大,我的时候, 我弟弟, Leo Sweat. I'm sure I butchered that phrase, but that's supposed to say when I came to Canada, I was six years old, my brother was four years old. So, ah, I can give you a few Chinese bloopers, but I don't think you'd be too interested in that. However, you may be interested in this. I recently started learning about Da Vinci. What is it? Da Vinci Resolve. Here, let me quickly Google it. It's right here, Da Vinci Resolve 15 by BlackmagicDesign. I would like to start learning this and using it because it's apparently better than HitFilm Express and Lightwave and, well, basically any free video editor and as good as Adobe Premiere or Sony Vegas. So this is their official website about Da Vinci Resolve 15. They do have a commercial version called Da Vinci Resolve Studio, which I will show you way down here. Wow, a lot of info about this product. Here, so the Da Vinci Resolve Studio costs $309, but this one, and I've already downloaded it. It was like a gigabyte. I haven't ran it yet. Actually, sorry, I have ran it. Let me show it to you right now. This is a little random, but here you go. This is Da Vinci Resolve when you first run it with nothing else. So I will try to learn this software. Would you like me to make videos as I learn Da Vinci Resolve so you can learn it with me? Tell me down there in the comments below, and if enough of you show interest, I'll be happy to make a series on The George Show with Da Vinci Resolve, how to use this software to make great videos. All right, Freedom Family, I think I've done enough babbling on. Hope you've enjoyed my banter. As always, leave your comments and questions down there in the comments below. I do read every single comment, and I encourage all of you to reply to comments like Musimasta has been replying to almost every comment. I have to give him a shout out. Let me just look at my latest video here. I bet we will see Musimasta in many replies. Let's have a look. Musimasta, thanks for the timestamps. What did I say? It's just George. Feels good to be on my own AdSense, all right? And we have no Musimasta here. Okay, hey, Musimasta, you're getting a little slow. How come you haven't replied in this thread? I'm kidding. Musimasta replied there. Musimasta replied, wrote a comment. Oh, and Master Audit, I have to also give you a shout out. You created very extensive comments with timestamps in the past, so I'm happy to see you here again. Actually, I'm curious what it's just George wrote here. This is very problematic. If you're not in the freedom, okay, this is a comment by the directors of gaming. Then you, oh, I remember this comment. Okay, I have to give it a shout out. If you're not in the freedom family, then you're against the freedom family. How many of you are fans of the hundred? If, okay, you are one crew or you are the enemy of one crew, choose. I have to play this because it's one of my favorite quotes. Oh, that's not playing. I think I got it, it's here. You are one crew or you're the enemy of one crew, choose. Now that's one tough warrior. Not one of me in the same room as her. That's one of my favorite shows. Do you guys like the hundred? I hope you do. I'm really looking forward to the new season. It's coming out, I believe in April, which is the same time that the new Game of Thrones season eight is coming. Yes, I believe it's season eight. Both shows I'm really looking forward to watching. All right, freedom family. I'm George and you've been watching. Click that I to partner with freedom and join the freedom family so we can all grow together. You get many perks, like position music. You also get epidemic sound, a lot of other access to royalty-free videos, sponsorships and many things to help you grow. Just click the links down there in the description below to get involved in our community, our forums, our Discord chat servers, meet our graphics team, meet our community team, all of that on Discord and the forums. What are you waiting for? Get started. And we will grow together as a family because this is the freedom family. You are part of it, we are all part of it and we're all growing together. To get more George, click that big F that will subscribe you to Freedom Central, home of the George show. And PewDiePie gave one of you, Freedom Family, a big shout out. Click that video to see the shout out and to see our new 3D sets for you and click that video to see what YouTube recommends you watch next.


Showed of our Arcade i6000 for the low power wifi chipset It's a chipset here So it demonstrates how to control the light through the wifi So each light could have your chipset inside or how would it be? No, it's just one chipset here And we just control one chipset to control four lights Then you can show that the lights turn on This is a PCB development Yeah, it is a PCB development Development board? Yeah, it is just a demo board Demo board? Yeah So that's for the future of the IoT Ultra low power wifi And how's the reception of your wifi technology? Has there been a lot of things going on? Yeah, we have a lot of things to work with our customers And it shows a lot of things we can work with For a small home, for a wireless device So it says power is 66 milliwatts? Yeah Transmit also very low? Yeah, it's very low So we think about I think for the wifi it is more easier for the connection So for all these products, the key is power consumption So we develop the least low power consumption wifi technology


Welcome to our session on Fund to Mission Open Access Monograph Model at the University of Michigan Press Progress Report. I'm Kristen Tordowski, the Director of Sales, Marketing, and Outreach of Michigan Publishing, and this is my colleague Charles Watkinson, who is the Director of University of Michigan Press and a UL at Michigan Libraries. I do want to give a shout out to a few members who helped make this presentation possible who aren't here today. Charla Lair from Lyrasys, who was an exceptional part of our team, as well as Emma Vichello, who is our Library Relations Manager at U of M Press. And with that, Charles, why don't you take us away? Very good. Well, it's very good to see you all. I'm Charles Watkinson, and it's so strange not to look at you through a sort of a square shape. We thought we might bring our own squares just so we didn't feel freaked out by seeing you all in person, but it's very nice to see you. And today what we want to do is we want to talk about the Fund to Mission Open Access monograph model and place it in context. So I'm going to do a little contextualization. Kristen will take over when it gets to the hard butt of the financiers. Then we'll talk a little bit about what we've learned, and we'll leave you with some unanswered questions and hopefully have a discussion. And just to say that, as Cliff said, all of these slides will show up on the recording, but if you want to click on the links, there's a bit.ly link down at the bottom, ump-cnif21. So it was interesting as Cliff talked about innovation of necessity, and whether those innovations will still stay around. Back in 2020, in March, so long ago, so many of the publishers working with libraries decided then at that point to make their content free to read for a limited time. And that was the situation at University of Michigan Press. We left the office on March 17th, and on the 18th we turned off the restrictions on our own University of Michigan Press e-book collection, making the books there free to read but not to download. And what we saw was this, which was basically a quadrupling of usage of our monographic collection and a real spread across the globe of where that usage was coming from. And this was a nice experience because for years as monograph publishers, we've labored under the narrative that the things that we worked so hard on aren't used, but as soon as the access restrictions were turned off, we found unexpected use all over the globe. And we did have a little pop-up survey, which just bugged somebody who started to read a monograph and asked them to give a little bit of information about who they were and what they were doing with it. And we had a lot of responses from that, which illustrated that this was not just bots, this was people experiencing materials in real ways. And what was interesting about that was the idea of the educated lay reader. It actually became a reality. I had one example which was, I am a retired judge and I loved French literature as an undergraduate and now I can deep dive into it again.   So our challenge now is, how do we take that experience which energised us so much and make this experience permanent? Because as of the end of August 2020, we turned off the access to that collection. And what we've been trying to do since then and as many other publishers have been trying to do is work out whether we have a business model which allows us to make all these works free to read and in fact, more than free to read, open access for reuse in perpetuity. This is just a very sketchy, no, sort of loosely sketched rather, picture of illustrating some of the models for open access monographs that seem to have risen to the surface. So over on the left hand side, parent institution owners of presses have found ways to support open access and there are examples like UCL Press, Amherst College Press, Lever Press, University of Westminster Press, University of Florence Press. So these are models where the parent institution funds the whole enterprise. Down below that, library collections budgets are paying for initiatives such as the MIT Press direct to open model opening the future from Central European University Press and Liverpool University Press. And I put knowledge unlatched in this bucket even though it's a little bit different. D20 and opening the future are what I think we've come to call incentivized open access where they use their collections of backlist titles, their legacy materials as a reward to libraries for supporting open access front lists. But knowledge unlatched has a slightly different model as we know. But it still comes out of the library collections budget. And then authors and their funders are paying under existing book processing charge models, the ones that are popular with commercial publishers, as well as funding from the towards the open monograph ecosystem model in the States from the Dutch Research Foundation, NWO from the Austrian Science Fund from the NEH Open Fellowships Program. So these are all models where essentially the author is bringing the money, even if it's not ultimately their personal money that they're bringing. And then of course somewhere in the mix, question mark, question mark, sales of print books, freemium versions, freemium ebook versions, for example, crowd sourcing, etc. But I think these three models have really risen to the surface or essentially three sources of funding. Fund to mission is a hybrid funding model. It depends on all three of those sources. And to be honest, this is the way almost all of these programs are going, that they're depending on multiple sources of revenue to actually make them work. In the case of fund to mission, the three sources that the program is relying on are, first of all, the support from the University of Michigan Provost. And I'll talk a little bit more about that, and Kristen will as well. Secondly, from the library community, and again we'll talk a little bit more about that. And thirdly, from that author side funding. So it's really a three-legged stool of a model. And here are some value propositions for each of those stakeholders. So for the University of Michigan Provost, when you invest in fund to mission, you are supporting multi-institutional infrastructure for the humanities. So what I mean by that is really that University Press has wrestled for quite a long time with the particular problem that they are of an institution. But the people that they publish are fundamentally almost all outside the institution. By that I mean that 5% of most University Press publications actually come from faculty at their own institution. And the majority of the beneficiaries of faculty from outside that institution, or independent scholars, etc. So that makes it very hard to make a case to university administration based on local benefit to faculty. So rather than making that case, what we're trying to do with fund to mission is make the case that, hey, Provost, you invest in the sciences in lots of multi-institutional infrastructure. This is a map of internet too, for example. So here are a lot of institutions investing in an infrastructure that actually depends on institutional nodes, but is actually providing benefit for the whole network. So back in the early part of this year, I and my colleague Melissa Pitts, who's the director of the University of British Columbia Press, made this argument around the idea that if you think about the nodal organization of University Presses around the country, you will see a very, very similar picture of a network of institutions with University Presses passing manuscripts between each other, depending on disciplinary expertise, for example. And rather than thinking of just that local benefit, let's think about the provostial, let's frame this in terms of provostial investment in the network for the benefit of everybody in the network. And so far that kind of thinking seems to be resonating. I will say also that this really links into a number of interviews with authors and conversations around the idea that when scholars write monographs, they're really interested in the process. It's a way of thinking through their research. In many ways, a monograph could be seen as a lab for a humanist, a way of thinking through their work. So you can see the sort of analogy that's being made there. So secondly, the proposition to the libraries. The libraries are purchasing quality open access content in these models, and these are purchase models. They're essentially saying, keep on purchasing our collection. You will find that the benefit doesn't just accrue to your own institution, but with open access, it accrues to your own institution and every other institution. So purchase away, keep purchasing, please. And you're purchasing open access content, but with Fund to Mission, you're also supporting an open source ecosystem. And so it's a double benefit. You're getting both things for the price of one. And the University of Michigan Press e-book collection is based on the Fulcrum platform, which back in 2015, we received funding to build from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. And that platform is really focused on the data that is associated with humanity's scholarship being linked into a book-like form. So essentially, it's built on repository architecture. It's built on San Vera Fedora data repository architecture. And then layered over the top of that repository is an EPUB reader, epub.js, an open source EPUB reader, and attached to that of various modular tools for doing different types of things within the EPUB. So able player for playing video and audio, leaflet for maps and interactive models. So basically, it's an entirely open source system. And then it feeds into and links with other open source software systems. So you can see here kind of an aspirational model. We're not quite there yet. But the idea being that, well, maybe one could use, and we are starting to use Janeway from Birkbeck College as a way of ingesting manuscripts, materials, and reviewing them. Editoria not so much using, but it was at one stage a good option for a production workflow. Fulcrum has an annotation layer with hypothesis, and it's looking increasingly likely we'll have an authentication level of layer for individuals with humanities commons. And then there are reading experiences on the Fulcrum platform itself, but also with the Palace project, simply E as was, the Rebus reader. So you can see how everything kind of connects. And there is a flow of money happening here. So for example, some of the money that comes in from the investments libraries make flows back into the hypothesis program as we pay fees. So anyhow, a double benefit for library supporters. And then finally for authors, for authors the book-like thing is so important for promotion and tenure and just for satisfaction. You know, you have a thing and you can hold it and it can go to conferences and you can show it to people. In the old days it could go to conferences and you could show it to people, hopefully again. But what is exciting is it can be both and, right? It's a print book done through print on demand and then there is also this supercharged open member of the network, right? By taking an open access work, the work, the book can be fully part of this network of activity and interaction and links. And here's an example, for example, here of how these books can support inclusive learning. This is a multimedia text for understanding music through the lens of the migrations and the spread of musical traditions which has done very well for us recently, a totally open access book, winner of the American Musicological Association 2021 Teaching Award. These books can really push public engagement. This is reported, I think we'll hear later this week that this is the most engaged with book of the year according to Outmetric and their tracking, thinking about Cliff's points about those numbers being a little bit dangerous. But anyhow, this is coronavirus politics. This has been very substantially discussed around the world. And then academic innovation. And this is the best e-product of 2021 from the Association of American Publishers. And this is the first peer-reviewed rap album. So in this case, the scholar chose that they really wanted to articulate their scholarship on the experience of African American masculinity through the form of an album while still getting the benefits of a book-like thing for their scholarly career at University of Virginia. So I just wanted to test the internet here. And so just to see what that looks like. So this is A.D. Carson's album. So something that's happening here, you can see this is Abel Player playing inside an EPAP wrapper. And if you click on this particular work, you can see that here it's gone to the repository underneath. So this particular track has its own citable link. It is an independent entity on the network. Here's coronavirus politics just while we're here. And here is the Outmetric button showing the use of this particular work. What was interesting here is that it really did get a lot of exposure in sort of hot spots of the pandemic. So Brazil, for example, showed up very markedly at one stage. And then with Music on the Move, this is, again, Abel Player. And you'll notice that we chose tools that are very, very much accessible tools. So the transcript and the software itself. This also has interactive maps using leaflet. So this is the Transatlantic Slave Trade. And you can see the numbers moving across there. So just to basically show that this is not incredible rocket science. This is not incredibly super-duper innovative. But for the scholars who are using it, it feels good.  So I'm going to pass over now to Kristen for how does Fund to Mission work. Excellent. So Charles has talked a lot about the interconnectedness of the humanities and how we're hoping to build on that and really bring it to the surface. And he's also touched on a great deal of the fact that open in its many forms, open source, open data, open access underpins a lot of the work we do at Michigan. Which is what led us to ultimately create this Fund to Mission, I don't know, initiative, I suppose you would say. So we'll really quickly go through the basics for those of you who want some more information about it. We call it Fund to Mission, as you might guess, because we want to emphasize the fact that this is mission oriented. That is a lot of what Michigan Publishing does. We are a non-for-profit. And so the mission is everything, essentially. And what the mission is, in this case, is converting 75% of our monographs to open access by 2023. This is a tiered move. So for our first year, for 2021, we had a goal of 25% open access, or sorry, 20% open access. For 2022, a goal of 50% open access. And then for 2023, a goal of 75% open access. We'll get into the reasons it had to be a tiered change rather than all at once a little later on. But this is what we found worked for us. And as Charles mentioned, this support comes from three different sources. It comes from our provost, it comes from the libraries, and it comes from authors or other funding bodies, even though no author ever actually has to pay money to make their monograph or their book-like object open. If they happen to have grant funding and would like to donate it to the cause of open access, we support that. So who benefits from all of this? Charles touched on the provost and how they benefit already through the way open access and a fund mission project increases the university's reach and reputation as well as contributes to this broader infrastructure. So I don't know if we've talked much about what Michigan Publishing actually is, but we aren't just the University of Michigan Press. We also, you know, I'm the marketing manager for our institutional repository, and I am the marketing manager for Michigan Publishing Services, which oversees the Fulcrum open source platform. So all of these fit together, and this is, fund mission is just one more part of that infrastructure. Now libraries benefit in a slightly different way, as one might guess. So broadly speaking, they benefit from an increased access to these titles that many of them wouldn't have as well as readership globally. And the funders themselves get to see that the research that they've put money into gets an expanded reach and authors that they support flourish. Now digging a little deeper into benefits for supporting libraries, Charles mentioned the fact that incentivized open access programs exist. And in a lot of ways, ours is also an incentivized program. So by, we've talked to the numbers a little, but in addition to, you know, getting 50% OA titles in 2022, 75% in 2023, institutions who sign on to the program also get term access to our 1600 backlist titles. We're continually digitizing titles, and in fact, most of them have already been digitized. It's just figuring out how to get them onto the platform with permissions signed off that's actually the real barrier. If people have permissions workflows or systems in place that are wonderful that they would like to recommend, please do let us know. And of course, authors also benefit from supporting innovative digital scholarship and really supporting the fulcrum platform, which I think is one of the greatest benefits of the Fund to Mission program. So that brings us to funding options, and I'm just going to really briefly go over this, but essentially we've set it up where people have different ways that they can support the program. They can support a single year of the Fund to Mission program, or they can support a full transitional collection, which is that period of moving from 25% OA to 75% open access. Along with that, they could purchase a backlist bundle so that that term access that I talked about no longer was termed for that institution, but they truly had perpetual access to those approximately 1,600 titles published between 2012 and 2020. If you really want to know, the pricing is available on the website linked there, and I think we have the link written out elsewhere in the presentation. Again, I'm not going to read through the pricing. You all, well, you can, it is available on the screen or in the presentation. I will just note that we were very conscious as we created the pricing of the fact that equity in pricing is not a thing that always happens, and we wanted to make sure that all institutions, even if they were on the smaller side or didn't have a lot of funding, had the option to participate in funding an OA program, because often what you see is it's a lot of ARLs, it's a lot of larger state schools that have the money to put into programs. What does that mean if smaller institutions don't have the option to participate? What does it mean if the only thought leaders or not thought leaders, but money leaders are the big schools? How does that change the system? It was something we were conscious of. And that brings us to where the money goes. So I will very kindly ignore most of the commercial publisher section right there, but I will just say that for Michigan Publishing, we really wanted this to be a reinvestment in the publishing that we did at a university press. Like Cliff said earlier on today, consolidation is happening more and more and more. And it seems like, okay, what is a way to make open access in smaller academic publishers continue to exist and give that equity and diversity of thought and publications that might not otherwise exist? It's also an investment in the open source community. And I know most of our friends at MIT and Pucknam and Liverpool, we all focus on editorial quality. Just because the book is going open access does not mean in any way changes its peer review process or the way it's sent out for awards or marketed. That all continues. And we've touched on this a little bit, but it also supports this broader web of consortial, library, publisher connection. Because we, lyricists, they hate when I say this, I'm sorry if you're in the room, lyricists essentially acts as our sales agent for fund to mission, which means they help us manage the back end and reach out to libraries and make those connections. So that's an easier process for libraries to engage with the product. And honestly, because we're a staff of 40 that can't really manage all of the libraries who sign on. So that's a great partnership for us. So we're going to talk a little bit more about the fund to mission progress. Thank you, Kristen. Staff wise, Kristen is a staff of three to actually get all of this done. So lyricists is really essential for our work. I'm going to start with the parent institution. So how's it gone talking to the parent institution about their payment, their contribution? So lots of words on this slide, but just to say that we went to the provost in last year, for last year's budget with a business case, for essentially increasing the continuing base support that she provides the press. So every year for the last decade or so, the provost's office has contributed around $600,000 per year to support the University of Michigan press, which is about 20% of the total cost of the press. That's fairly standard for university presses. I think the average is about 15%. Some presses don't receive any money, but the majority do receive some. For FY22, so that is from July 1st, 21 to the end of June 22, we requested an additional $400,000 in base support, so continuing support for fund to mission. And the provost gave us $400,000 in one-time support and an invitation to resubmit for FY23. So that's the process that we're in at the moment, and that budget request will go in in January. And what she said with the response was that we appreciated the thoughtfulness of the business plan. However, initial discussions with academic leadership suggest there is a need for additional development to realize a long-term sustainable strategic solution that aligns with the priorities of schools and colleges. We encourage discussions with key deans in this area as you develop a long-term sustainable strategy. So one of the things we've been doing over the past few weeks is going door-to-door with the key deans and talking about what we're trying to achieve. And what's been really interesting is just how much the deans have known about the press, which is a bit of a surprise to me, and also how the directions that their faculty members are moving with their scholarship is extremely aligned with the direction that we're moving with this kind of support. And that would include deans in areas like public health, social work, areas that maybe may seem tangential, often to the sort of humanities and qualitative social science approach that pressors take. Ultimately, Paul Courant, who many of you will be familiar with, who was probably a unique combination of provost at one stage, dean of libraries, and director of the University of Michigan Press at one point, has always made this point that a million dollars a year to sustain a press may seem like a lot of money to a big research university, but a million dollars a year to support the publication of faculty work in humanities is a drop in the bucket relative to the total expenditure on humanities faculty at that same university. So this is not a huge amount of money. It doesn't mean that we're not paying attention to its spending very carefully. And also, of course, this is what is regularly spent on a startup package for one assistant chemistry professor, so in the broader scheme of things. Over to Kristen for how the library community has reacted. Sure. So we've seen a lot of great library support. I'm going to go down the numbers of that a little later. But before I dive into that, I want to share our library website and something that we've been really conscious of, which is accountability and making our data as transparent as possible, because the idea of open access, at least to us, is that it is a moral ethical approach that you are taking. So with that, you have a duty to show people what is being done with the money and what their support is actually going to do. So with that, we created a website that really, especially as we exit out this first year, is going to have a breakdown of the numbers and show those. Wait for that in January or February while we wrap up our finances for the year. But it also has a really innovative dashboard that is a Kibana dashboard taken out of our partnership with OAEBU and their data work. And it really can show where these open access titles are being used, because that's often one of the barriers to either authors or scholars being concerned about making their titles OA is, okay, what's actually going on with this content. And so if we pop down to the actual numbers a little bit. Okay, we'll do library supporters, that's fine. So as you can see here, I'm not going to read through them, but we have supporters from what we call all of our different tiers. Our tiers are based on Carnegie classes. I did the math, it's about 27% of our supporters come from tiers one through three. So these would be community colleges, small liberal arts colleges and specialist schools. And then approximately 72 to 73% of our supporters come from tiers four and tiers five. So these are your ARLs, your big research institutions. And the way those numbers break down in terms of actual money is shown on the screen of how many institutions and how much funding is committed. So you can see a grand total of 69 current subscribers. Bringing in almost $320,000. I will give the disclaimer that we just changed the math this morning, so I'm hoping it's accurate. But as of right now, I think this is correct. So 320,000 sounds like a nice chunk of change, especially when our original goal to bring in money was $250,000 per year to support fund to mission. So what actually happens to that money? And I'm going to walk us through the example of the 2022 collection, 50% open access, A, because it's simple math and B, because the numbers for 2021 were so influx that I thought trying to give true examples was going to be a little much. So like I said, 2022, we publish 80 titles, 50% of them are open access, therefore 40 titles will be open access. We have a goal of 250,000 net revenue from libraries going to this transitional collection. So given the 250,000 number, we actually need to bring in $400,000. And let me walk through why that is. So what happens to $400,000? That means we only get to keep 250 of it. So starting with $400,000, like we mentioned, we work with Lyrasys. They do excellent work for us, and they deserve to be paid for their labor. Lyrasys gets a commission of 15% from us. Our platform, Fulcrum, also gets a 15% fee from us. Now, as we've mentioned in this presentation, that 15% is being pushed back into Michigan publishing programs in that it's going to Fulcrum, but it's going to different line items essentially. It's going to develop that open source software rather than going into making the titles themselves open access. So already that brings us down about 30%, and we only have $280,000 left to play with. As a reminder, 50% OA, 50% not OA in the 2020 collection. So taking that 280,000 number and half, we keep a full 50% of it to turn back to OA, $140,000. But that other 50%, the other 140,000, royalties still have to get paid for out to authors because their titles are being sold. They've signed contracts with us that say we get X% royalty on the paid titles. The royalty amount does differ slightly from depending on the bulk of titles purchased, but for ease of math, I just said 5% here, so we have to take off approximately $7,000. And that brings the total for that half of the money down to $133,000. So if we add 140,000 plus 133,000, that brings us to 273,000 or slightly above that 250 net number that we were hoping for. There are some other fees that go into here that our director of finances would be ashamed of me for not mentioning, but essentially this is the super simple math of what it takes for us to keep around $250,000. So this brings us to the question of how did we get to 250,000 was the number we needed to keep and what is up with that? So what is up with that is a few years ago we worked with a consultant called Kimberly Schmelzinger who worked with us to figure out what does it cost for us to actually produce a monograph? And the answer that she came up with was that for us it costs approximately 21,000 to 22,000 for us to produce a single monograph. That's slightly higher than I've seen in other surveys and analyses, but I also know that Kim is producing, I think, another bit of research on this shortly, which may have surprising results on the cost going up for people. But if we multiply that $80,000 by $22,000, or sorry, 80 titles by $22,000, that brings us to approximately $1.65 million for us to run our monograph program. So how do we get to $1.65 million? Well, like Charles said, our provost has consistently given us $600,000 annually, and we have that one-time $400,000 annual amount. We also have title subventions. This comes from authors, from grant-giving institutions, from other locations, and those account for approximately $270,000. And then we have library investments, and that library investment line is what I brought down from that earlier chart. This is the $273,000. This is what we're getting from those 69 institutions who have paid money, essentially. And then we have other revenue. This could be from print sales. This could be from other subventions or grants. It is essentially the bucket of, we know other money comes from somewhere that we're going to put into this program. It's just a bit messy what that is. And altogether, those do bring us to approximately $1.65 million. And now I'm going to talk really briefly about authors, because I think this is one of the most interesting facets of why we've had to make this a transitional collection rather than all of a sudden snapping our fingers and making everything open access. So I'm not going to read these quotes precisely, but I am going to say that we walked through and looked at numbers. And as a lot of folks in this room know, STEM has an established history of being OA. The humanities, not so much. This has to do with the difference in funding. This has to do with the fact that, you know, humanities and social sciences have a monograph rather than a article culture. And that really does make a difference in how things can be funded. And I do want to highlight the SuperFarm chart from sort of a meta-synthesis of different OA percentages by discipline. That first column there, it cut it off, but it is OA in all of its forms, including hybrid and et cetera, all through platinum. And the second column is gold OA. Now, as you can see from the extracted note on the side, the authors of this noted that figures for the humanities and arts were not included due to their underrepresentation. So it was so hard to pull together data on these that they couldn't do the breakdown in the same way that they did for the sciences. I know Cliff mentioned biomedical research in his presentation earlier, and, you know, yeah, they have 58.5% OA according to this study. But if you look in that gold OA column, the arts only have 2.4% OA.  We published a ton in the performing arts and the scholars. So what do we do to make OA more interesting for these folks, more worthwhile? How do we get them the money to make their content open access? That's one of our big questions. And I will just toss out there. If people are doing studies on how COVID and the pandemic have changed these numbers, I would be super interested to hear that because the most recent meta-analyses I could find in 2018-2019, and I know that so much has changed in the past few years. And I do want to flag some other facet of disciplinary variation. And maybe I should have called this slide something different because really what we found is that demographics also differ by who is able to publish open access. Often because they hold less high roles as professors or because they have been in the system longer either because exiting for healthcare or other issues, women often are less likely to publish an OA as journals as our scholars of color. So this isn't disciplinary, but it is a difference and it is an equity issue. So it's something we think about as well. Who are the authors we're publishing? How are the ways we can support people who maybe wouldn't have access to OA otherwise and give them that access? And that is a really interesting article or study that I show on the screen. So if folks want to dive in, I highly recommend it. But that's all a very dour look at open access when really what we've seen is overwhelming amounts of author enthusiasm for this. I think our acquisitions team in particular was really concerned about what we would see when we started this push for open access because 10 years ago you heard horror stories of scholars just not trusting OA journals or thinking that it meant that their scholarship wouldn't be taken seriously. But as you can see from the quotes on the screen, our authors are so excited for the most part and think that OA millions, their titles are going to reach a broader audience, that this is something that is going to enrich their education, their scholarship because they'll now be able to have conversations all over the globe and see new things from it. And in particular, I just loved some of these extracts from emails that I anonymized. But essentially, you know, there was this author who was super interested in copyright and Creative Commons and had done all of this research on it as an undergrad. But, you know, they were in the humanities and they thought this is never going to happen for me. I'm not even going to try because it seems really hard and I'm tired. But aren't we all? But it came through and they were thrilled. But I will say this author enthusiasm is very discipline specific. You know, there are some disciplines that are less entrenched in... Well, entrenched isn't the right word. There are some disciplines that are more flexible in terms of OA than others. And that's one of the reasons we've had to have this tiered approach to open access, is we want to get our scholars on board. We can't turn their books away if they don't want their books to be made OA. And so, for, you know, classics in particular has been one that we've really struggled with because there is not broadly speaking as much of an interest in it. And so, you have to have conversations with people and say, yeah, no, this is going to be great for you. I do want to give one slight classics example, though, that is an exception that proves the rule, I suppose, which is we recently published this project, this GABI database. GABI is a city in ancient Roman Republic, theoretically where Romulus and Remus were educated, so it's really fun. This is an example of a humanity's open access database with 3D modeling of these archeological sites and these depictions of different interpretations of the past. But it was a huge project to get on board, and I think one of the more complicated ones that we've dealt with. But this shows the variation. So a project like that is very different than a project like a peer-reviewed rap album, or even just a more standard open access monograph. So it's quite the project to figure out all of the ways that open access can support authors in different fields. And I think we're excited to continue that journey. So this is, thank you, Kristin. This is really for the benefit of the slides later. So here are the links to various bits of information about what we've been talking about. So we're going to leave here with some unanswered questions that we have internally, with the hope that in the last 15 minutes or so we can have maybe a bit more of a conversation. Big question for us and all of the programs, of course, is what will happen to library support after the three-year transition, especially will that support move from venture capital to continuation funds? And that's a big question. How can we make it easier for smaller institutions to support fund to mission? What role might consortia play in coordinating their support? We'll support for a North American university press remain focused on North America. You may have noticed that all those institutions are essentially in either the U.S. and Canada. And we just, and I know this is true of MIT as well, we just are failing to bridge the Atlantic in terms of getting support from outside the U.S. Even though, outside North America, even though when we looked at usage, actually the majority of individual usage actually comes from outside the U.S. and Canada. Can fund to mission scale to other university presses? Of course, that's a crucial question. Now, I believe it definitely can. Maybe not all provosts are able to give $400,000, but they're all able to give more to their university presses. And there is a potential scalable model here. Will we ever reach an 100% open access front list? Again, Kristen's point about some disciplines not necessarily fitting well with open access. And we've guaranteed we'll provide that restricted access harbor for those disciplines. And then we aren't dependent on print sales in this model. And I think the conversation about what happens to print sales when a book is open access is incredibly difficult to predict, and so that's why we haven't made any presumption. But there are books where if we could price them at the right point, I think we could sell a bunch of print copies, and that's money for reinvestment. So that's all from us, and we would be delighted to hear your other questions and contributions of various sorts from the floor. Thank you. And I see there is a mic up there. And if you could say who you are and where you're from, even though I know that, Craig. I'm Craig Van Dyke from the Clocks Archive. Thank you very much for the presentation. I'm curious of the 80 books or 40 books. To what degree are they more or less straight monographs that we would recognize as print books versus highly enhanced, such that they might not have a print sale component? I would say the vast majority at this stage are more traditional monographs, but there are definitely examples within this of more enhanced things that you can't quite replicate. This series isn't for 2022, but we have a forthcoming series about tabletopic games, which is going to have, you know, videos integrated on the Fulcrum platform and interviews that we're hoping to have up there as well. And it's the sort of interactivity that you can't quite replicate for the print. And I think we're still grappling with what that means to sell a print book of something where there is this supplementary material online. And I know people do that with textbooks all the time, but this is different. And so we're still playing with that and learning, I think. I know that, you know, a couple of years ago, we came to CNI and did a presentation which was very focused on the problems for titles like that around discovery and very much with Craig's question in mind, preservation. And I actually don't feel as concerned any more about that because of some of the initiatives that have flourished since then. COX has been very involved in a project led by New York University Libraries, which has involved Fulcrum and Manifold and some of the other platforms, at ways of replicably classifying these enhanced works and providing workflows for deposit. And that involves clocks and portico, particularly. And then discovery, I mean, open access discovery used to be such a problem, but I think we're seeing substantial solutions now.  So thank you Craig. I mean, the preservation of these enhanced works as they gradually slowly increase in number, I think is very, very important. And I think for once we're kind of getting out ahead of that, which is exciting. I see another known entity moving towards the microphone, but this known entity is going to introduce itself. John Lippincott, C&I Emerita. I'm curious about the role of royalties and a lot of authors or potential authors have grandiose ideas of what royalties they may receive and we know that's pie in the sky. For most instances, but not for textbooks. And in the humanities, many monographs are used as textbooks in at least upper level, even undergraduate classes. And I wonder two things. One, do you get pushback from authors who are hoping that their monograph will be used as a textbook? And secondly, do you think that will impede the adoption of the model by some presses that have more of a textbook focus? Sure. So I'll get us started with that. And first I want to give some background, which is that we have two categories of textbook at Michigan. One of them is a very traditional textbook that is written to be a textbook. These are English language teaching books that are, you know, written with that in mind. But the other ones fall into that bucket that you're describing, and we call those adoptable titles, where we anticipate that humanities courses, especially upper level graduate courses, will adopt these titles to teach. The adoptable titles do fall into our Fund to Mission collection. They can be part of those 40 open access titles, whereas our traditional textbooks, the English language teaching ones, are outside of that collection. And you'll notice we were very careful about putting our scholarly monographs when we talk about Fund to Mission, textbooks being a different beast. I will say for the folks who write these ELT books, they are often extremely concerned about their royalties, because unlike with traditional monographs, these are their retirement plan. Like, this is their income. And so I think that is something that we think about for the future. Are there ways that we can flip the textbooks open and still give credit where royalties are due? How does that look for other university presses that have a much larger textbook list than we do? Which is all to say, I don't have a very good answer to your question, but I acknowledge that it is a complicated problem. But Charles, do you have... I certainly don't have an answer. I think it's an excellent question. And I think it's particularly a good question, because one thing we've learned, and I know this is very true of other monograph publishers, is just how much monographs are used as textbooks. I think that's been a big learning, and it means that a number of monograph publishers are now actively interested in learning management systems and connections into learning management systems in a way they've never been before. And of course, it's not the whole book often. It's often a chapter. It's part of an edited collection. So I think it is a very, very good question. Kristen's point about the motivations is very, very important. And it has been interesting with English language teaching lists that if one... You know, the authors really do split down into two groups. I mean, and one group really is very engaged now in open education and affordable education and just works and lives within a different value system than the other group. I think that whole point about crossover into the textbook world and also crossover into the bookstore world is very relevant to the question of disciplines that are being a little bit slower into open access. Classical history is an interesting one, and history in general, of course, is interesting in that that is a discipline where there is often crossover into the pages of the Times Literary Supplement or the New York Review of Books. And there is this strong tradition of a book that will sell to the judge, the educated lay reader. And those are particular dynamics relevant to particular fields that are very, very interesting. So I think it's a great question. And I should say on the royalty side, we'll continue to pay on print sales, but none of the library money we receive does then go into royalty payments for this open access e-book content. I know we have time for probably one other question if anybody has one or another comment. We've got another few minutes. I see one, a question appearing. It's so exciting not to see questions in chat. It is. Thank you, Maggie Farrell from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.  So my experience in working with provost and presidents is that they want their university press to sit on its own, so to speak, financially. And so I'm really impressed that your provost won is funding $600,000 and willing to consider bringing that up to $1 million. So can you talk a little bit about the politics of working with the provost and perhaps the other deans in the university? Thank you. Thank you, Maggie. The really crucial moment, I think, was actually back in 2014 where my boss James Hilton, the dean of libraries, made a change in the accounting structure of how the university is considered in its... how the university press is considered in the structure, the financial structure of the university, which is most university presses like University of Michigan Press pre-2014 are classified as auxiliary units. And the measure of success is often linked to their financial performance. So that would link them into housing, food services, athletics. And in that frame, a university press looks like a bit of an embarrassment. What James did was he moved the university press into designated status. And designated is also a revenue-related category, but its success is judged on accomplishment, on mission, primarily, and financial performance, secondarily. So it's really financial performance in order to achieve mission. So an example of designated would be executive education, for example, in a business school. And that was a crucial move because it shifts the frame of how the university press's success is evaluated. And if one then thinks of the university press as being part of the mission of the organization, it's very important then to be able to tie it into clear, strategic directions. So, for example, we have been fairly relentless in tying the university press's performance into the diversity, equity, and inclusion mission of the president and provost, the academic innovation mission. So these are all sort of listed and also the faculty public engagement mission. And you can see from those examples how those are the examples that we highlight in talking about the accomplishment on those missions. So I think it really is a shifting of frame and it's particularly possible if one reports into a library as a university press. And I'm saying that because the dean of libraries or the university librarian often has political power in the university that allows those sort of conversations to happen at the highest levels. And it no longer means that the university press is right at the margins, kind of a forgotten unit. It means that it actually can manifest in those larger strategic and political conversations. So that has been part of the building work over the last five plus years by James. And I should say with those meetings of the deans, he's the one who sets those up. So he appears and will do all the talking and then I will sit and try and look presentable. And that's important. I will just comment that I think Charles is underselling himself slightly here but I'll let it go. Well, thank you very much. We are at time. Thank you very much for your attention and let us know if you have any other questions. Thank you.


Thank you everyone who came for this talk. I'm going to talk about a better experience that we had at FreeAPA project with packaging our stuff for multiple distributions, but primarily for Fedora. For those who are curious, those ships are the ships that come every year to Helsinki Harbour for like 300-something years to sell the fish on the fish market once a year in September for a week. And they have this race that was raised from last year basically all in mist. That's why they all graze. Some of these ships they actually have red sails there, which is a bit of an interesting part for me because I have actually two red heads at home, but I'm not wearing it all the time. So I work at Red Hat for the identity and security and do a lot of stuff upstream. So I'm working on FreeAPA as you could have guessed from this talk. And I also work on Samba for the last 15-something years. And I'll contribute to Fedora whenever I can, primarily around the areas that we get affected with for the Fedora packaging, but for example I'm sort of a life support for ZZ-Leap package, which is kind of dead upstream-wise, but it's needed to build documentation for MIT Kerberos. And if we remove it from Fedora, we remove MIT Kerberos from Fedora. So sometimes your path to packaging can be absolutely unpredictable. So if we look at the FreeAPA, it's actually quite a huge thing by itself, but it also a system that packages a lot of or combines a lot of other software together. So I'll start with the framework. It's mostly Python, but it also has a bunch of C plugins and components. So this is kind of code-based statistics that you can see we have around 300,000 lines of Python code. Around 50,000, 60,000 lines of C, if you give or take the comments into account. There's some JavaScript stuff, pretty sizable for the web UI. Some of these things, they actually get calculated wrongly, but that's how all these systems work that take the statistics on it. It's a web application that runs under what WSGA in Apache has tight integration with the Emods.js API, which provides you single sign-on through Kerberos. It has a lot of Python code in the installers and it has a lot of plugins that implement certain things. This is basically to make Kerberos and LDAP working on Linux. And when it started in 2008, 2007, the idea was to bring back this idea of nice manageable services on POSIX compatible or Unix platforms, like Microsoft did when they basically took the Unix technologies and combined them in a nice package and made Active Directory at 10 years before that. So we're still doing this work and people keep us named as Active Directory for Linux, which is not exactly that, we do much more than Active Directory does, but so this is kind of a lot of comparisons on it. We do a lot of stuff around the MIT Kerberos to provide the single sign-on things and we have many features in MIT Kerberos driven by our needs. So for example, the two-factor authentication, the whole process of implementing it from RFC acceptance to driving to support was driven by the needs of free IPA project. And then there's Kerberos proxy implementation which allows you to have indirect access to your KDCs so that you don't put them on the Internet even though it was created to be put into this kind of environment in 1980s. Microsoft invented a protocol that allows you to know this over HTTPS, so there wasn't any implementation until we started working on it. Now there are four or five different implementations including those that are combined with VPN services, so kind of spurred up a lot of effort here and there and got to the nice things. So the other part, pretty important one is the LDAP server which serves as a backend to all these services. We use what used to be called Netscape directory server, then iPlanet server, then when Red Hat bought it, it was called what it was, Fedora directory server, FDS, right? And then it was renamed to 389DS. 389 is the port for LDAP, so kind of this thing. But we have more than dozen plugins on top of it that implement specifics of the behavioral things. This presentation it's uploaded and it has links to other presentations, so it's kind of a web of rabbit holes that you might get into if you get bored. The other part is that we handle the certificates and reissues of the certificates automatically, so we get a lot of stuff and this is another part of Netscape heritage that Red Hat obtained. It's the DOCTAC certificate authority which is upstream for Red Hat Certificates Services product, but also available as a part of free IPA. So we kind of cut down the number of features that we automate for typical users. Our HTS does a bit more. We just do what we want, but we share the same code base. And it's based on Java, so there's a lot of packages. And if you look at the dependency, reverb dependencies is like 350 plus packages altogether. So we are what one of my colleagues says, essentially we are the rail, Red Hat Enterprise Linux. If anything is broken in rail, we most likely will find it because we depend on a lot of that stuff. And then on the client side is the another component of this ecosystem is SSSD, which I think these days available almost everywhere on all distributions, that has a special provider mode that talks to free IPA or IPA and has support for most of its features. Not all of them, but it's kind of growing. It's also growing pain if you don't have those. So we also integrate with DNS, making it easy to dynamically provision hosts, enable, create the zones and records and zones and so on. We do DNS sec automatically and enable kind of a lot of things. It's a bit fragile. Some of the pieces are a bit harder to maintain things because we touch a lot of inside the bind. Bind doesn't have really a good plugable API. So we have to play Frankenstein style operations to get it working. Surprisingly, it works pretty well for most use cases. And this bind in the build up is the backend to look up the data in LDAP. So we have interesting case ones where some guys took the bind in the build up, compiled it with bind on salaries and used that to load the zones that they had. They had something like 30,000 zones with sizable amount of hosts per zones to compare how this would work with like a typical flat file-based thing. And apparently this scaled much better the environment. So the difference was like hundreds of times in the performance. Then we integrate with Samba to get the active directory things and extensively use some Python bindings to provide this integration because we have Python stuff there inside. So from some real-world examples GNOME runs its account system. So account.gnome.org actually runs free IPA web interface for all GNOME participants. Fedora project infrastructure has integration within itself IPA doesn't show you this thing externally, but you're required to use Kerberos authentication to some services and that's exactly where we are. And then Red Hat IT runs a modernization project since like 2015, so 2016 they actually started to deploy it. And last year there was a report on that one. It's linked from here. On the distributions level, so we have more or less full support for both server and client side from Fedora, REL, CentOS and Alt Linux. The full server support is a bit interesting thing and I will go into details just in a few minutes. Because IPA is not a single server, you could run it as a single server, but you actually can scale horizontally by replicating all this data and you can split them in sites, put in different locations and so on. It becomes quite harder to deploy this if you don't have all the infrastructure in place. So in many distributions we actually lack that infrastructure, but in some we do have. So Alt Linux and Fedora and REL based it once. They all base it with NSS and OpenSSL, Interim Peripet, components that basically provision all this crypto, databases for these crypto libraries, so we can do that stuff. In other distributions we are a bit troubled. And on Debian, for example, in derivatives the client support mostly there, so it includes SSSD and components that need to provision the IPA client, but on the server side for a long time it was a bit retaste. On the other distributions it's even more complicated, so Arc Linux doesn't have any packaging for the server, they had packaging for the client that got broke. OpenSusy and Sles they don't have server support anymore because OpenSusy had packaged free APA like four years ago and then they removed it, whatever was the reason. And the client side SSSD is built without IPA ID provider, so you can use it but you cannot use the extended functionality there. So what this kind of mostly complete thing means, we work with a lot of upstream projects and drive changes there as we see bits and pieces. So one of these is SSSD is our sister project, so there's pretty good collaboration on what needs to be added. But if you get a distribution that doesn't have good updates for the released version or they have forced it that you cannot really release a newer version into the updates, you might end up having pretty old versions that don't support the features that you might expect to be there. So in the support channels in free APA there's users mailing this, we get a lot of mails about the situation on Ubuntu with the older versions of Ubuntu where people kept using something that was released like eight to ten years ago and then insist to have features that were released to three years ago. And that happens all the time. Also with CentOS 5, people still force it to use that. I don't know who is forcing them. If you're one of them, please wink. So there's a lot of features were added into SSSD over years. One of the latest ones that I'd like to highlight is the smart card authentication for the local, for the remote users, for users from Active Directory or from IPA and the integration for GNOME environment where you can provision the settings and how desktops looks like, what applications are there through definitions of rules in IPA to GNOME desktop workstations. A pretty neat one, SSSD delivers the part of it. Also there was a talk last year about this with a demo. With Curve us, we have a bit more complex situation because it's an implementation of a protocol that gets a lot of scrutiny in terms of what it was put there and any new changes they basically come through. A committee that defines RFC specifications that might take like 5 years easily like it took for a spake exchange that allows us to finally protect in a single exchange when you obtain the initial ticket, protect your credentials against the men in the middle attacks but also get the two-factor authentication in one go. We got certain APIs and plugins extended in MIT Kerberos because we saw a need for that for enterprise environments. One of them is, for example, certificate mapping. It used to be that if you want to have smart card authentication to get your Kerberos credentials, you have to have strict rules of what is the certificate authority that issued the certificate. The certificate had to have special extensions in it which didn't really work outside of a lab. If you really have an environment where something is supplied by, let's say, your government, like your ID card with the government, you need to trust certain certificate routes and so on and you have to have this sort of definition somewhere and for different groups of users for different machines you have to have these differently defined mappings between what is acceptable and what is not and as a result you get an environment where, let's say, like the French government was talking about 5.5 million users on the matrix yesterday, right? So if you get that kind of environment, suppose that you have to put all these mappings into the kerb5.com for every single machine. It doesn't scale. A lot of things doesn't scale this way. So we are talking with the upstreams for introducing interfaces that we can dynamically load plugins that actually do this sort of decision-making in the code instead of looking into statically defined things. It took several years to get these interfaces, get them rolled out into the upstream releases then in the distribution. So eventually it comes in into Fedora, Rel, Debian and others and you could start using them. But nobody really other than the upstream projects like IPA really tracks that all these things exist. And if you try to package this kind of thing you have to know that you have to get this knowledge somehow. There's automated translation methods, for example, or I didn't write here for the Kerberos stuff location of the KDC according to your locations so that you don't talk to KDC on the other continent because it's just the one that your DNS, SRV record mentions. These kind of things they were needed to be written and created. And this coordination it goes beyond that. So all these projects, they are fairly independent. Like Samba has own needs, MIT Kerberos has own needs. We have good relationship but it doesn't mean that we drive them. We use them, we contribute, but we don't hurt them. It's impossible to hurt all of these fellows who are of strong opinion of what they are doing. You could coordinate but always the coordination might fall. It just fell because somebody forgot to tell somebody else. And especially it's hard on the distribution level where you have, aside from the upstream thing, you have maintainers and maintainers might not give any interest into your tasks. They are interested in their own stuff. So a typical example that Samba often updates its own libraries and these libraries they have own requirements so back ports and all this stuff might break the versions of Samba that are in the back ports under all the release distributions. You could do all this stuff but it's a snowflake that turns into Blizzard quite easily. Well, I'm from Finland so for me Blizzard is kind of a living creature. I escape at one when I came here. It's still there. Yeah, but really dependency chain reaction for these changes limits us from, well, us as upstream plus all maintainers on all distributions from being flexible here. So we rely, as I said, on MIT Kerberos. We do code level dependencies and the thing is while Kerberos is a protocol kind of interoperable you cannot really do this interoperability on the single host. There's simply, it's not designed that you can load compile against MIT Kerberos and load Heimdall implementation of the same library. It just might crash application, might not, typically crashes and depending on how far in the process you are, you might get spectacular crashes. So and also there are features that don't fully match. You get the things like two factor authentication which might differ between implementations. You get support for credential caches that exist in one implementation not the other. So for example, Heimdall doesn't know anything about Kerin, kernel Kerin based credential caches and for a long time MIT Kerberos didn't know about the KCM protocol for the remote credential cache management that Heimdall invented. So it was kind of a game where you really cannot combine things. You could interoperate on the network but not really on all things. On the Debian for example, Samba is packaged with Heimdall. So it's compiled against Heimdall because Debian wants to provide Samba AD DC and we spent seven years Samba upstream to do the MIT Kerberos-based Samba AD build. So it's extremely hard work and we package that in Fedora now so we don't need to have Heimdall in Fedora and we can build everything from one source but Debian still doesn't build MIT version and frankly it's not completed yet. There's some pieces that still missing. We still need to complete them and then switch off the Heimdall support in Samba because it's also quite costly to support two code bases. And yeah, we do have things in IPA that extend Samba so you load this IPA Samba driver that queries LDAP database for all this account information and you can load that but because on Debian Samba is compiled against Heimdall, you get simple scratch and you get structures that basically do not correspond what the code expects. You get quite good crashes and of course a lot of bug reports. Then the other part is Java. So Doctax is all Java. Well, it's all Java plus Python plus C and stuff but it moves slowly because the primary use of that code base is something that is heavily related so if you do Red Hat certificate server deployment you expect that this will be a certificate authority for some big organization which is somewhere in the bunker under the ground and so on so protected with probably less moving parts there so they don't really jump around and implement all the new features. Like JDK 11 was released last year in September or so and so Debian moved on to get this thing and Doctax doesn't support it yet. So we cannot really get Doctax now working in Debian because of certain things are not compatible there on particular on the TLS level because there was a lot of change in JDK 11 around the TLS 1.3 implementation. But the other part is that a lot of operations they assume that you use crypto library called NSS which is part of Mozilla and Firefox things. Firefox people think that this library is within the Firefox. So it's not really a shared libraries but a long time ago Red Hat did standardize on NSS for crypto operations. We thought that we will convert the wall to use NSS and it didn't happen so nowadays whoever uses what they want they use it and we try to get the other side of it which is certification for governmental use and of spread out for NSS at least and the open SSL but Doctax depends on NSS a lot and it expects certain things to work there for PKS 11 modules for hardware crypto modules and so on and there was attempt to get this bridge between mostly open SSL based environment and NSS based environment with a special library that used private functions from NSS that the NSS project didn't want to publicly expose so they forked part of the code and then NSS decided that they killed this code kind of interesting story and NSS PAM finally got to Debian right last year thanks to Tima Althanin who is a lone supporter of this whole infrastructure on Debian distributions and not in his primary employment time and then we got this JDK 11 break and everything else so that's one of the stories that kind of quite sounds quite bad for Debian users and then the other part is that we get a lot of to coordinate system services so you have to run MIT Kerberos you have to run in some environment Samba then LDAPT and all these things together we depend on system D for doing a lot of these things like circuit activation to factor authentication because that's sort of a thing that gets activated automatically from the Kerberos KDC when there is a request coming in and otherwise it's shut down and there is an obstruction layer for doing all these configuration file changes if needed for example for all the rail versions there is auth config and then there was a change for providing auth select in Fedora so we had to adopt the other distribution somebody has to write this code so there was attempt to write recently for Debian so we get a bit of movement for how PAM and NSS configs are NSS which configs are written down there and Arc Linux for example they have a downstream patch that doesn't apply anymore they never submitted it upstream they don't know why we basically would like everyone to work upstream but if it requires changes in the distribution we are not at the position who have to do this work so now I'm coming to the actual thing that happened in Fedora and it's a pretty interesting thing because it's collaboration between multiple distributions while it's benefits in Fedora here and FreeAPA it came originally from Suzy so we get on one side on upstream FreeAPA we have continuous integration system that's put in use for every single pull request it's running VMs in open stack environment so runs them in parallel whatever we have kind of capacity there so that you get pull request, you get some tasks every test kind of unit gets deploying a server deploying replica, deploying clients doing some operations that's specific to the test then tearing this apart then doing all the other things in total there are like 55 test suites for each pull request and you can run maybe five, six pull requests in parallel at the same time at our current capacity and it's roughly two hours of a wall clock so you have to wait but you have to wait anyway in any of those cases then on the other side we have nightly runs so we take whatever is in the Gitmaster or a specific branch we have this for several branches and run this against Fedora version that is released and roughly once a month we update the images so that we include something that was in updates by that time or when we know that there's some problem fixed and in total it's about twice of those test suites so we get around 700, 800 individual tests executed it's pretty large so if you kind of take them sequentially that's not really nightly I tried to find a planet or a dwarf or asteroid that has the same rotational period like this 60 hours or so there's none in this system so then I started looking around what it's exactly and it's parallelized it's around eight hours so that goes into nightly unfortunately we have a team that spawns from Australia to Brasilia the other way around and that means that we have people working almost all the time so for us nightly means that we still waste resources that somebody could use at that point and this is a typical diagram how parallel those tests are the interesting part here is that there are few tests that run two and a half hours long and they are pretty heavy ones so in the middle closer to the lower part there's this long big line that's a DNSSEC test that does a lot of things like enrolling, creating a zone with DNSSEC signing it up then trying to get the renewals for the signatures there going back in time, going forth in time all these things that's why it takes also a lot of time there the shortest line second from bottom is actually built so build is small the real thing is huge the deployment is about the same time as the build so you get like 5-6 minutes to deploy the full single system and then you start doing the actual tests and then we get to Fedora so we do the integration at the update submission time so with Fedora the concept is that you first build packages and then you combine an update request that goes against a particular distribution version and at that point when this update request is submitted you get a bunch of messages actually on Fedora messaging bus that somebody listens to at least I hope somebody I get them on IOC from the Fedora bot but there are other bots that are listening for this and one of the bots is actually running OpenKa set of tests and OpenKa will be described by the next presentation so if you're interested you can look at that and OpenKa was created by OpenSuzi and it's a nice thing that allows you to get a lot of interesting things with the distribution it starts with a bare metal and you can program everything there so we get a lot of things some of them I didn't write this here in detail but the tests we run are typical tests like deploy one instance of IPA server one client try to create some records there are some administrative tasks and then try to use that and we have tasks that actually imitate the full use of it like full desktop experience where you have the server you have a client that's enrolled to that server and then you get a human logging into that system through GDM so the graphical environment supposedly gets in Kerberos ticket at this point so you launch Firefox you do single sign-on into the site into IPA management console and then see what you do there and OpenKa automates checking that things are done right so you do the operations that are actually there and we also do the upgrades so the upgrades is an interesting thing because you can run a server on the previous released Fedora version then upgrade the server then enroll a client which is running on the older version then upgrade the client and verify that it continues to work so it's kind of the work that you really need to do for the release engineering and we do it at every package integration this is a demo so for example right now this shows you a kind of environment where you have a server standing up first then the client standing up then a client connecting to the server enrolling into the IPA deployment and then you try to log in into that client and let me show you it's basically two-minute clips I hope they actually will work this is all recorded automatically by OpenKa it's a bit of sped up of course of what happens you cannot do that manually unless you're a super-typer guy so this is Fedora 28 yes, installed something rebooted installing some other packages that needs to be there this is Havaget to get the randomness in the VM in an easier way and now it's deploying the server Fedora has this roll-keep thing that's scripted and of away any details how the actual deployment happens I think it's around 30-40 seconds in this compressed video so you'll get something it is a local network within the environment OpenKa creates what you don't get there it's a weird IPv6 yes, weird IPv6 because there's no IPv6 in that environment so now script is finished but it waits until the whole stuff settles down because services need to start and I hope we still have 40 seconds to actually complete this particular scenario I think there will be like 10 seconds or so after widget starts moving because something happens behind not visible on the actual console which is recorded here so now it collects all the logs and provides us all the logs including the AS Linux stuff and then you can look up and see it so a lot of uploads updates and final rebooting it oh, this is actually a second one already, right? yes, so this is a second demo now we have a machine we now have a client that tries to enroll to that machine Totem doesn't make it easy without looking at what is happening there so stopping the playlist from execution was my mistake, I didn't do that so it started playing the second video but that's exactly what we need so we have a server I think it's being started again 10 to 20 seconds something happens in the background of what we don't see on the console but after that it should start a graphic session log in into Firefox into cockpit console and through cockpit actually enroll into the system okay, joins the domain as administrator does something, okay now it goes into IPA console and creates users there creates some other things yes, quite fast adds them into the access rules and then tries to verify that you can actually do these operations as that user and you can log in and see your settings change the password and all that stuff, amazing all without human intervention when sometimes it's great, finished we can switch back to the actual presentation so yes, we can catch non-trivial box with this and last time I asked Adam Williamson who is a Fedora QE guy who implemented all these tests in OpenQE how many bugs we caught in I think 18 months that this is in place in Fedora and he sent me a list of 33 bugs we caught some of them are pretty weird you really have to look into details to see why they happen a lot of bugs are as a Linux access denials so we actually find out that you need to extend the policy and so on but there's one thing with two bugs there was a bug in MIT Kerberos that caused it to crash in multiple applications the real cause was actually a bug in 389DS and the LDAP server stepping over several threads they can step over each other's Kerberos credential caches so wipe out tickets for each other and then bedlock in Kerberos library because they kind of use some resources that touches the same credentials cache so while fixing this bug in both of them there was a security fix in MIT Kerberos so they had to do a CVE package update and they fixed it and that was a mistake the guy backed off the patch that fixed the bug for 389DS in Kerberos so we had several times back and forth with the security update that was simply broken for IPA and that was noticed by the open key test that we run and 389DS broke another part of IPA by changing their internal way of how they create LDAP sub-trees so it's now fixed the fix is in Fedora 29 since Friday but the story was like two or three months of interoperability things and it's still visible in the upstream night LCA because we did not update the image that we test there which we should do next week the director server update from Friday actually shows you that all these tests are fine except the first one which has some minor AVCs in the logs that's why it kind of highlighted there so that's the great thing so what's next, what we want to do we want to integrate all this stuff at if we look at the how we would test so we test what code goes into the release of IPA but we also test what code goes into the release of Fedora or Rail because it's the same everywhere and we need to test the other way when things are just added to the packages in Fedora we want to do it at the pull request time but Fedora CI infrastructure the standard one doesn't allow you to run multi-host tests so we want to plug in into that and listen to the messages that are issued on the bus and run this in our PRCI upstream thing to get it there why don't you use the multi-host testing in OpenQA? we do use multi-test testing in OpenQA yeah we do it's just that at that point it's too late we want to test when pull requests are submitted to something like NSS library or something like Curl I've got ideas for that yeah so this is the typical thing it's just something we need to work on to get it done on the other side we look for contributions for other operating systems like I really would love to see Susie actually packaging for APA we're working on it and that's why I want your test yeah and we need to share all these tests because we really share the same stuff there and get your nightly runs on OBS for anything you could do but it's a bit more of work because like I say 300-something packages involved in all this thing and you need to coordinate this is more than herding cats it's like herding asteroids or comets so questions if I have time left five minutes okay sorry the audit part okay the question is IPA stands for identity policy audit when audit will be implemented that's the question we have a project that's called common logging that tries to collect logs from different places and coordinate them together it started with the open shift needs because they have a lot of logs that are not related to the host systems they are related to containers and they need to collect them on the other side so we rely on that when it will be ready for collecting logs again we have a lot of replicas so you have to collect data from the replicas and from the clients as well the other side for regulated industries we have session recording already in Fedora it's the T-LOG project and SSSD has integration with this it's basically replacing shell that your user runs automatically depending on the rules that are defined in IPA in a central way and then that whatever is done in the shell is recorded in journal on the machine we have a lot of metadata in JSON format and integrated with cockpit so that you can browse the changes and see what services started what they produced when somebody did these operations last forced them when we had the identity dev room there was a talk about it okay well if there are no more questions thank you