Changes in your diet not only affect you physically, physiologically inside, but also mentally, how well you think, psychologically, how well you feel. But you'll never know just how good you can feel until you put it to the test and try eating healthier. Welcome to the Nutrition Facts Podcast, I'm your host, Dr. Michael Greger. Today we look at what plant-based foods have to offer for the special dietary demands of pregnancy. In our first story, we compare the breast milk of vegetarian and non-vegetarian women. A completely plant-based diet is suitable during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, and childhood. A position echoed by the oldest and largest association of nutrition professionals in the world. I asked a couple hundred health professionals, though, and as few as one in three appeared to know it. Like any diet during pregnancy, though, it should be well-planned, which means consuming at large amounts in a wide variety of plant foods from all the plant food groups, including whole grains, legumes like soybeans, regular beans, split peas, chickpeas, lentils, vegetables, fruits, and nuts and seeds. Make sure to get enough calcium from healthy plant-based sources and sufficient vitamin D from sun or supplements. And critically important, make sure you get a regular, reliable source of vitamin B12. The two books I recommend for raising plant-based families published by two of my favorite evidence-based dietitians are Your Complete Vegan Pregnancy by Reed Mengels and Nourish, co-authored by Brenda Davis. What data do we have on the impact of vegan diet on pregnancy outcomes? The vegans had a significantly lower gestational weight gain by about 6 pounds and lower birth weights, but just by a few hundred grams, both about 7 pounds each within the normal range, with no differences in the rate of pre-term birth, nor any significant differences in the umbilical cord blood B12, folate, or iron marker levels. Between the study groups, not surprisingly, since the vast majority of both groups were taking prenatal vitamins as they should. What about the composition of breast milk from those eating vegan or vegetarian diets? The systematic review has shown that all non-vegetarian, vegetarian, and vegan mothers produce breast milk of comparable nutritional value. Even omega-3s, there was no difference in milk DHA composition by diet group, but that's not saying much, since over 80% of study participants had milk concentrations of the long chain omega-3 DHA below target. I talk about the best way to get pollutant-free sources in a previous video, which we'll link down in the doctor's note on nutritionfacts.org or in the description on YouTube. The meat and egg industries like to scare monger about choline, but wait, this study was written by someone with no conflicts of interest. Liar! Here's a corrected version. The competing interest section has been updated, and surprise, surprise, the author is a member of a meat industry funded advisory panel. The truth is, there's just as much choline in the breast milk of vegans as those who eat eggs or meat. There is something egg-free, meat-free mothers may not be passing on as much, though, industrial pollutants like the banned pesticide DDT and cancer-causing PCBs. The highest levels were found in the milk of fish-eaters, and the lowest levels found in vegetarians. Even just cutting out meat may cut DDT stores in half. What about mothers who eat strictly plant-based? Their milk is even less polluted. From almost every contaminant, there was no overlap in the range of scores, meaning the highest worst vegetarian value was lower than the best lowest value obtained in the U.S. sample. And by vegetarian, here they mean women who eliminate all animal products from their diets, including eggs and dairy.  But for some of these other toxic pollutants, the average vegetarian levels were only 1 to 2% as high as the average levels in the United States. Breast is still best, regardless of the dietary pattern of the mother, but nursing infants of vegetarian women whose diets are low on the food chain, in other words, plant-based, had the advantage of being exposed to less chemical pollution. In our next story, I recommend all pregnant and breastfeeding women follow the Consensus Guidelines to get about 200 milligrams of preformed DHA from a pollutant-free source. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of DHA supplementation of pregnant and breastfeeding women failed to find any clear and consistent short or long-term benefit for cycle motor, mental, visual, or physical development.  But what if moms don't start out with large maternal stores? In other words, maybe DHA failed to help women who were already getting enough, but maybe women with very low intakes would benefit from DHA supplementation. Well, first it's interesting to note that even by 1978, researchers were suggesting plant-based diets as the diet of choice in the treatment of our number one killer, but babies breastfed by vegan moms have significantly less DHA in their bloodstream, presumably because the moms had significantly less DHA in their breast milk. The question is whether these differences are of any consequence. The growth and development of vegan and vegetarian children are normal, as long as they're getting their B12. No evidence that neural or intellectual functions are impaired. In fact, the two studies we have on vegetarian kids showed that they had higher IQs, though that may have been because their parents tended to be better educated. But even though the kids seem fine, it doesn't rule out the possibility that there may be some subtle differences in visual or neural functioning. It'd be interesting to compare the function of babies getting vegan breast milk levels versus general population levels. Vegans had 14 vegetarians, 30 omnivores, 37. This study compared 0 to 32, 64, and 96, and 32 worked better than 0, but more than 32 didn't add anything. This could explain why the general population at 37 doesn't benefit from additional DHA supplementation. But what about down at 14? Most studies down at that level showed no advantage over 0, though one study found a benefit supplementing at as low as 5, but that doesn't help us. Now, just because babies breastfed by vegan moms have significantly lower DHA levels in the blood, doesn't necessarily mean they have lower levels in their brain, which is where it counts. What we need is a randomized control trial and non-fish eaters of DHA supplementation. Until then, it's going to remain uncertain. So what should pregnant breastfeeding women who avoid fish do in the meanwhile? Low intakes of DHA doesn't necessarily equate with fetal DHA inadequacy, but this new data suggests that some infants may not be getting enough and could benefit from their moms supplementing. And so I recommend pregnant and breastfeeding women on plant-based diets do follow the consensus guidelines to get about 200 mg of preformed DHA from an uncontaminated source like algae oil, which is probably the best combination for all women, given the state of our world, to minimize exposure to toxic pollutants, such as dioxins, PCBs, and mercury. Finally, today we look at the optimal B12 dosage, vitamin B12 for kids, pregnant women, and seniors. Universal improvement of B12 status appears to be a nutritional imperative, with possibly profound beneficial effects, particularly at the bookends of life at old age and infancy. I've explained the rationale for my recommendations to take vitamin B12 supplements once a week, once a day, or alternately eat sufficient daily vitamin B12 fortified foods. But for those over age 65, those guidelines go out the window. The recommendations change to everyone, taking a high daily dose of 1,000 micrograms every day. Starting at age 50, everyone, meat-eaters and vegans alike, should be taking B12 supplements or eating B12 fortified foods, but over age 65, 50 a day may not do it, even 100 a day doesn't seem sufficient. Researchers investigated three doses, and found that most didn't normalize their MMA until after the 1,000 microgram dose, MMA suppression is a measure of B12 sufficiency, but they just tested 2,500 and 1,000, maybe 250 or 500 would do it. Researchers set out to find an adequate dose at that age, and it seems we need at least about 650 to 1,000 a day, and most people, hence my 1,000 a day recommendation after age 65. Okay, what about the other end of the life cycle? The consequences of B12 deficiency and insufficiency can be devastating in infancy and childhood, and this is not just a problem for plant-based pregnancies. Vitamin B12 insufficiency during pregnancy is common, even in non-vegetarian populations. About a quarter of all pregnant women aren't getting enough B12, and that number rises to nearly 1 in 3 by the third trimester.  Thankfully, even severe brain atrophy can be substantially reversed with B12 supplementation, but better not to become deficient in the first place. The solution proposed by a group of French pediatricians is to recommend against raising vegan kids at all since B12 supplementation is necessary, and they're not alone to vegan or not to vegan. In 2016, two professional organizations, the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the German Nutrition Society, issued conflicting statements. The US Academy said that even strictly plant-based diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, whereas the German group echoed the French group, saying, since you have to take B12, we can't recommend a vegan diet for pregnant women, lactating women, infants, children, or adolescents. To confuse the matter further, the American Academy of Pediatrics appeared to have it both ways. In one place, repeating the US Academy's position while in another place, it stated that vegan diets should not be recommended for children. But I think they're just saying the same thing. Everyone agrees that a non-B12 supplemented plant-based diet is a bad idea. That's part of what the US Academy means by well-planned. Everyone, eating plant-based, but especially pregnant and breastfeeding women, must ensure a regular, reliable source of vitamin B12, meaning B12 supplements or B12 fortified foods. But then you may be able to get the best of both worlds. That's why there are reviews with titles like this. Plant-based pregnancy is danger or panacea. Danger, if you don't take your B12, but following a plant-based diet during pregnancy may be protective against the development of preeclampsia, pre-gravid obesity, and minimize exposure to DNA-damaging agents. It may also protect our newborns from the onset of pediatric diseases such as pediatric wheezing, diabetes, neural tube defects, oral facial clefs, and some pediatric tumors. Vegan pregnant women have a lower than average rate of cesarean section, less postpartum depression, and lower neonatal and maternal mortality, with no complications or negative outcomes that are higher than average. In addition, a lower incidence of what used to be called toxemia, a potentially dangerous pregnancy complication known as preeclampsia. Overall, plant-based diets seem to confer protection to both mothers and newborns by not only reducing the risk of several pregnancy-related issues, but decreasing the risk of childhood disease. Children following plant-based diets might have a low risk of developing obesity, obviously less exposed to drugs used in animal production, and a favorable anti-inflammatory profile of cell signaling factors. But again, everyone on a plant-based diet has to get enough B12. Pregnant breastfeeding women can just follow my 50 micrograms a day recommendation for a non-pregnant adult or 2,000 a week, though they suggest breaking up those doses into two halves to boost absorption. After infants are weaned, they can start on 5 micrograms a day. From ages 4 through 10, they can ate half the adult dose of 25 a day, and then at age 11 they can do 50 a day or 2,000 a week. You don't have to worry about taking too much, it's water soluble and you'll just end up with expensive pee. We would love it if you could share with us your stories about reinventing your health through evidence-based nutrition. Go to nutritionfacts.org slash testimonials, which may be able to share it on social media to help inspire others. If you'd like to see any of the graphs, charts, graphics, images, or studies mentioned here, go to the Nutrition Facts Podcast landing base, there you'll find all the detailed information need, plus links to all the sources we cite for each of these topics. My last two books were a How to Survive a Pandemic and my How Not to Diet Cookbook. Get ready this year for the launch of How Not to Age, and of course all the proceeds for the sales of all my books goes directly to charity. NutritionFacts.org is a non-profit science-based public service, where you can sign up for free daily updates on the latest new nutrition research with bite-sized videos and articles uploaded nearly every day. Everything on the website is free, there are no ads, no corporate sponsorships, no kickbacks, it's strictly non-commercial, not selling anything. I just put it up as a public service as a labor of love as a tribute to my grandmother, whose own life was saved with evidence-based nutrition.


Welcome, everybody. I'm Joanna Lee, the VP of Strategic Programs and Legal at the Linux Foundation and CNCF. And I have with me several of the co-chairs of our Code of Conduct Working Group. Arun Gupta, he's the governing board representative co-chair, Emily Fox from TOC. And Kristoff, who is the elected maintainer representative leading this effort. So about nine months ago, we launched this Code of Conduct Working Group to really up-level and evolve Code of Conduct processes instructors at CNCF. So historically, all Code of Conduct incidents were resolved solely by CNCF staff. And there wasn't a lot of documentation and clarity regarding the procedures and how incidents were resolved. And there were a lot of processes behind the scenes, but not really visible to the community. And it's so important in an open source community for there to be community, technical community involved in how we do governance and establishing cultural norms and resolving Code of Conduct incidents and conflict that arises in the community. And so we formed this Code of Conduct Working Group to really up-level the process and make sure that there is strong community representation in how Code of Conduct incidents get resolved, combined with support from the foundation, because there's often a need to bring in external investigators or mediators. We're so thrilled to have Colleen Prasad on our team now who is our event ombuds person. So she's now at events on site. So she's a neutral, external consultant that people can go to and talk to and share concerns that they have or report violations. If for some reason they're not able to find a Code of Conduct committee member or a staff member, or they just want a truly, truly confidential, neutral party to speak to who's not on staff and not part of the committee. So we sought out to create a new structure and really clear documentation regarding how Code of Conduct incidents would be resolved going forward. Also, we wanted to clarify the jurisdictional rules around how Code of Conduct incidents are handled. We have the Kubernetes Code of Conduct committee who's done some great work. We have other projects that have Code of Conduct committees. And then the LF events team has historically also responded on site to Code of Conduct incidents that happen at events. And then there's this need for a CNCF level Code of Conduct committee. So how do we sort out which incidents get resolved by which body? So we've developed a jurisdiction policy and I'll provide a highlight of that, of an overview of you that shortly. And we really wanted to provide accountability and transparency and clarity around the whole process and structure. So the four deliverables that have been produced that we consider the minimum viable product for Code of Conduct enforcement structure include some updates to the Code of Conduct itself, incident resolution procedures that cover how to submit a report, how reports are handled, how we deal with confidential information, who information can be shared with and when, et cetera, the jurisdiction policy, as well as our charter for the Code of Conduct committee, who serves on the committee, what are the eligibility requirements, how do we conduct elections, what are the quorum requirements, how are decisions made, et cetera. All of the work of the Code of Conduct working group has been occurring on GitHub in our repository with a roadmap and a review cycle. So we are almost across the finish line. We've been hard at work for a number of months, launch in October, and have been steadily working towards completion of all of these deliverables. Right now we are finalizing the Code of Conduct committee charter. We saved that one for last because we knew that there would probably be the most discussion around that and there has been some great feedback and commentary shared and the comment period for that document is still open. So we invite you to share your feedback directly with the co-chairs or myself or comment in GitHub. After we finalize the charter, there will be one final public comment period on all the documents as a whole and this is also our opportunity to make sure the cross references match, that there's alignment and to do some fine tuning before it goes to the governing board and the TOC for ratification. And then the final step is to hold elections and launch the committee and provide training and onboarding to the new committee members. So I'm gonna go just provide an overview of each of the deliverables we've produced so far as well as an overview of some of the open issues that are under discussion. So the first deliverable we produced was a set of updates to the Code of Conduct itself. There were a number of editorial changes and refinements but essentially these are the highlights. We clarified that the Code of Conduct applies to all participants in our community, not just contributors. So that includes event attendees who may not have made their first contribution yet. We've also added additional dimensions of diversity, the commitment to make CNCF a harassment-free environment for everybody. We also updated the scope to clarify that the Code of Conduct applies not just in project spaces but also in overall community spaces. So for example at events or at meetups and also when an individual's words or actions are directed at or about a CNCF project, the community or another community participant. Because we realize there have been a number of incidents in recent years that weren't clearly captured by the current scope statement. Also we added welcoming and inclusive language to the list of examples of positive behavior. There were some additional examples added to the list of unacceptable behavior including violence, stalking, unwelcome physical contact, unwelcome sexual or romantic attention. Also providing knowingly false or misleading information in connection with an incident and retaliating against a person who's in good faith submitted a report or provided information as a witness. We've also produced a jurisdiction policy that is quite detailed that describes which body resolves which incidents. It also outlines an appeal process. There are some exceptions to each of these to these general rules but in general a project level Code of Conduct response team whether it be a committee or designated Code of Conduct responders, they would be responsible for enforcing the CNCF Code of Conduct when an incident is occurring entirely in a project. The CNCF Code of Conduct Committee is responsible for resolving incidents when they occur, their incidents are either project agnostic. So like for example, if the conduct occurred in public or at an event or if it impacts multiple projects or if the behavior occurred in a project that doesn't have its own designated Code of Conduct response team, a vast majority of CNCF projects do not have their own Code of Conduct committee. There are just a few that do. And then there are some incidents that are resolved by the Linux Foundation, primarily the events team. And this applies to incidents that happen onsite an event that violate the LF events Code of Conduct. And also if there's an event that there's an incident with a heightened risk of legal action or liability. And there are some events, some incidents that would violate both the LF events Code of Conduct and the CNCF Code of Conduct. So those are namely events that, incidents that occur at or in connection with the CNCF event like KeebCon. And those would be jointly resolved by the Linux Foundation events team and the CNCF Code of Conduct committee. The jurisdiction policy also provides appeal rights in very limited situations. For example, if it's discovered that the project level Code of Conduct responders had conflicts of interest and didn't recuse themselves or if there is an outcome that's grossly disproportionate to the incident. For example, mirror one time rudeness and the person apologize if they were banned from the community permanently, that's not proportional, right? Or if somebody is continuing to engage in really, really egregious behavior that endangers the community and they were only given a warning and they're persisting in the behavior. That's another situation where the outcome is not proportional to the incident, the harm. And a situation where the CNCF Code of Conduct committee might review an appeal from a project level outcome. Otherwise a CNCF Code of Conduct committee, unless there's some real issue in either the outcome or the process that was followed, the CNCF Code of Conduct committee is not going to second guess the decisions of project leaders. There's also a framework for determining whether there are legal risk factors and if there are then project level responders and CNCF Code of Conduct committee would consult with LF legal on what the actual legal risk is and whether it's something that the Linux foundation should handle instead so that the Code of Conduct committee is not exposing itself to risk of legal action liability. And there's also some procedures for how record keeping happens. Namely, it's important that there be some centralized repository of summaries of incidents so that we can identify patterns in the community, like are there particular types of incidents that seem to be recurring and maybe there's a cultural issue that needs to be addressed or also if there's somebody's a repeat offender. That's helpful to know because multiple violations by the same person versus a one time occurrence obviously could warrant a different outcome. We have detailed incident resolution procedures that cover a whole range of topics. Really the operations of the incident resolution process including how to submit a report. Everything that happens after a report is submitted from investigation and evaluation to notification of the outcome. There's more information here about confidentiality policies and how and when information can be shared. Procedures for communicating the results of an investigation, conflicts of interest, what those mean, the difference between a hard conflict and a soft conflict and the procedures and obligations of committee members to recuse themselves. There's also examples of potential remedies and outcomes. There is a provision clarifying that interim protective measures can be taken if necessary when an investigation is pending to protect community members from harm and also a list of factors that are considered in determining the outcome of an incident. So we are now finalizing the Code of Conduct Committee Charter. This is still open for public comment so we really welcome your feedback on how to fine tune this and get the right composition here. So the current proposal is that there would be three elected community members in addition to alternates and two CNCF staff members that are designated by CNCF. This structure does contemplate having alternates and the reason there would be alternates is if a primary committee member has a conflict of interest, is on vacation, is sick, is for whatever reason is unavailable or shouldn't participate in resolution of an incident because of a conflict of interest they have, we wanna make sure that there are alternates available to step in so that we always have multiple community members involved in resolution of an incident. It's not best practice to have a single person having to determine the outcome of an incident. We always want to make sure that this is a group decision making process. Universal eligibility requirement for all members of the committee is that they must not have violated at the CNCF Code of Conduct within the prior 18 months. There are some additional eligibility criteria and procedures for the elected community representatives. The current proposal would have term lengths of two years and no limits on the number of terms that somebody could serve. Also a company representation limit to reduce the likelihood that lots of people would have to accuse themselves of conflict of interest. We don't want more than two people from one company serving on the committee at one time. So some additional eligibility criteria and some of these are hard requirements and some of them are soft. This is similar to how Kubernetes does it. They have both some hard and soft requirements. The person needs to be an active participant in the community or previously been an active participant. We want people who understand this committee at this community and who are invested in its success to be part of this committee. Previous experience on an ethics committee or Code of Conduct Committee or other experience that might be relevant is also valued but not absolutely required. Must be a generally responsible human. That's, I understand that's objective. That's also in the Kubernetes Code of Conduct requirements. Also demonstration of integrity, professionalism and positive influence in the community or other communities is highly valued. The current proposal for who would elect these representatives is that the TOC would elect all of them. Operationally this is the most simple approach but another option that has been under discussion is having of the three primaries and then the three alternates, the TOC could elect one. TAD contributor strategy could elect one and the maintainers could elect the third set. But note that if we are gonna have multiple bodies electing that creates a lot of operational complexity because what happens if they all three or two out of the three elect the same person?  So there's a lot of operational complexity for gonna do multiple elections at the same time. There's also a question about should there be staggered terms? Staggering is really helpful because it means that when some people cycle off, there's still some people who have institutional knowledge and experience. The CNC of staff members could provide that stability but it's also great if there are community members involved who also have prior experience and can help with continuity. Other ideas that are under discussion are combining staggering and having multiple bodies involved. So maybe it's TOC elects one one year and the next year TAD contributor strategy elects a set and then the next year the maintainers elect a primary and alternate but that probably would only work if everybody is asked to have three year terms. And one thought around the three year term is three years is a long time to ask somebody to serve in a committee but you could ask them to serve as a primary for half that time and then the second half of the time they'd be an alternate. So the time commitment won't be much lower but having alternates who have experience and can step in when necessary is of course very valuable. So there are probably many different iterations of how we elect the community member representatives and we would love your feedback and input on that either in person or email us or comment in GitHub. So the next steps are we're in the comment period for the code of conduct committee charter then the co-chairs will meet and resolve those comments and then there's going to be a final comment period for all the documents and it's really around fine tuning. That's not the time to be proposing like drastic changes to the structure. This is really the period for like fixing typos making sure the chorus references match making sure that there is consistency and alignment across the documents. And then the target date for completion is for the co-chairs to finally as a documents in mid-May and then submit it to the TOC in governing board for ratification in accordance with the CNC of charter. And then sometime in the fall we would be holding elections and launching the new committee structure. And so there are multiple ways to contribute in this final stage. You can open an PR, issue or comment. There is a survey that you can complete if you want to submit feedback anonymously. Only staffs use that and then we can open the PR or issue or comment for you and just say it was submitted anonymously like by a community member. And of course you can share your comments with any of us. So are there questions and comments? I'd like to open it up for discussion. And co-chairs, feel free to also chime in with anything you'd like to add about the process and the journey and what type of feedback we're looking for. I guess I'll just take a moment to thank all the people who have provided feedback thus far. There's been a lot of engagement from a lot of different groups, a lot of different stakeholders. It's very clear that the community cares very much about this process. So if you provided that feedback either publicly in GitHub or privately to myself or one of the other co-chairs, thank you very much for contributing that feedback. I would also just like to thank Dems who was the previous TOC co-chair and served in this capacity for helping drive a lot of the comments and the changes. I'm new to the Code of Conduct Working Group but I am serving on the Interim Code of Conduct Committee so operating off of these procedures today. Yeah, and I think we have met over the last six months what was an idea at Detroit is now sort of an MVP here. I'm quite amazed by the consistency that we have met and the feedback that everybody has provided. What I would love to learn is what do you see is missing? What do you think we are not tackling? We believe we have done a thorough job of being very challenging every document, every step of the way, but what do we think is not tackled by us? Hi, thank you. Justin Capo's a tough project. So I have like a couple of things around this that I'll just kind of toss out in no particular order. As many people may have known, I've raised an issue on the TOC mailing list that had a lot of interaction from different parties that directly relates to a lot of the Code of Conduct problems. And I've actually, one thing that happened as a result of this is a lot of people came up to me privately and told me other stories. And I encourage them to talk about these stories with members of the Code of Conduct Committee. I will say that I could have walked around the entire conference and the only person that I would have been able to see and know was on the Code of Conduct Committee is Emily, because I know Emily. But I would have had no idea any of you are Code of Conduct Committees until I saw a name tag up close or something like that. So one thing I would definitely suggest is to have something, a ribbon, hats, something that people can say, hey, and just come talk to you. And they'll probably want to talk to you in a way that they talk to me, which is more of kind of over a beer thing rather than I want to fill out a form that involves a legal complaint starting. So that's suggestion number one is hats or ribbons or something to more clearly identify yourself so people know to come up to you. Related to- So maybe on that, to clarify, we are the Code of Conduct Committee, Code of Conduct Working Group. The Emily is part of the Code of Conduct Interim Committee. So we are not responsible for handling the actual conduct issues, the committee is, but I think your idea that somehow we identify the Code of Conduct Committee itself, I think it's a wonderful idea. Somebody needs hats or ribbons or something so that people know to come up to you. I just want to clarify the difference between working group and the committee. Okay, so I am still confused on this point now, but it doesn't really matter to what I'm trying to say. A couple of other related things with this is, so there are, there's certainly a perception, like a lot of the stories and things that people have come up to me and talked to me about have also been things like, oh, this company has this track record, not just an individual, but this company is harboring this behavior and this happens. Is that under the purview of this committee? And if not, where is it under the purview and is that something that is considered being to be handled here? Oh, yeah, I've got to. And then I'll, then I'll. Well, so the Code of Conduct Committee, I mean the Code of Conduct addresses behaviors, not attitudes, I guess can you provide me with a hypothetical example? Let's say hypothetically that a company who's a platinum sponsor has a, has members of that company engage in similar behavior that's against CNCF principles and Code of Conduct violations. Can they just keep rotating new people in to projects and just keep getting new strikes against new community members, even though it's the same company doing the same thing or at some point does the Code of Conduct Committee say, you know, we're getting violation after violation against people from company X because they keep doing, you know, something here and the common link is that it's all company X, despite the fact they give us a lot of money. Is this, you know, is there, how does that get addressed? Is that part of this committee or not? Because that is a corner case that might possibly... So I'm going to jump in here a little bit. I think that is certainly something that can be brought to the Code of Conduct Committee moving forward. As far as I'm aware, we do not track company affiliation associated with some of the behaviors, except in very rare circumstances and it's usually because things have escalated. Serving as co-chair for this conference, there are behaviors that I've observed from companies that are culturally embedded within them that are combative and in some cases a little bit more aggressive than what we would welcome within our ecosystem. And when those occur, we, the co-chairs do engage with CNCF staff to help resolve a lot of that conflict. But I've not peeked behind that curtain to understand how that works. I do know that when we make those reports to the foundation, things change. And we receive better behavior either from a new individual that's engaging with us or just generally better responses from that particular organization. It sounds like this is a nice area that we need to call out within the documentation and make sure that it's clear what that process looks like. Because very clearly, we do have a lot of organizations that are heavily invested in the foundation and we want to ensure that they're abiding by our Code of Conduct as well. Another comment that I'll make on that is one part of the Code of Conduct Committee definition that wasn't covered in the slides but is actually in the documents is there is a proposed role for a governing board liaison between the Code of Conduct Committee and the governing board. So that allows for a path of communication where if there are trends, if there is some troubling behavior, like there isn't information from the Code of Conduct Committee, like non-anonymized information is not allowed to be passed to the governing board. That's part of the information sharing policy. But they are allowed to communicate things like trends, statistics, anything that and to make recommendations to the governing board that if the governing board needs to intervene in a particular situation because something is getting out of hand, there is a defined path of communication there to ensure that, again, if community members are coming to the Code of Conduct Committee and saying, hey, I'm seeing something systematic here that may need to be addressed, that Code of Conduct Committee has a communication path to other folks like CNCF staff or the governing board in order to take some other remediation action. And the other thing that I'll point out is like these documents that we are working on and creating right now, they're point in time, like every document that we create. If at some point in the future, a situation arises that is not appropriately addressed by what we have theoretically come up with today, there is still room for the governing board, the Code of Conduct Committee to revise their own documents and to be like, hey, we need to revise things in order to address a situation that we couldn't come up with an idea that would happen today. Okay, and I just have really quick, very minor things that probably don't need a lot of back and forth, but there are a lot of legal requirements for certain other people who things are disclosed to to do a lot of reporting around this. Like certainly, if a student comes to me or someone that works for me, tells me of an incident, even if it happens here at an event or something like it, I have a legal requirement in many cases to report. And so that's, I assume that that's covered under some of what's discussed here, but there are gonna be a lot of complexities in situations like that because very quickly, like New York State and the federal government and others in the US will get involved, even if an incident happens here in beautiful Amsterdam.  Well, we're not going to, I mean, there is a lot of complexity and I mean, if you have a legal obligation report, I mean, what these procedures define is how you go about submitting that report and then what our responsibility is after that as a committee and staff, but it's not going to tell you what you're, because every person is going to be in a unique situation. Some people don't have legal reporting obligations, right? It depends on jurisdiction, depends on what your job is. Okay, and the final thing is that coming from the side of submitting these reports and things, it was extremely helpful to have fairly constant, fairly repeated feedback different members of the community who did this reporting. And I want to applaud that and say, if anything, feel free to do that even more frequently because that is, you know, from that side of it, that side of it, you know, I'm just collecting and passing information along, but the fact that you feel like you've said something and nothing is happening is a horrible feeling. And so to hear like, we're still working on it, this is happening, this is happening, this is happening is really valuable to the people who have done the reporting. Yeah, yeah, absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, thank you. And to also address your question about trends or if there's a particular, you know, organization that seems to be, you see some cultural issues that are showing up in how they participate in the community. So when I comment a little bit on like philosophy and theories of justice here, this is something I'm very proud of that's represented in our work. We actually have, in our incident resolution procedures, we've identified that restorative justice and transformative justice are approaches that we want to seek in addition to the more traditional remedies. And Colleen, who we've engaged as our onsite event ombudsperson, she's also available in between events for to accept reports and to facilitate restorative justice conversations and outcomes. You know, we're just so thrilled to have her here. There are, so I'm just gonna summarize what that means. So traditional remedies are like, you know, somebody suspended or they're given a warning or they're beyond from the community or our leadership privileges revoked for some period of time, right? Or there's, you know, a public or private reprimand. And then some restorative justice outcomes. I mean, Colleen can expand on what that could look like. There's so many different shapes to restorative justice, but that's often a facilitated dialogue to for healing and resolution between the person who engaged in the behavior that was harmful and the people that were impacted by that. So it's really about the parties involved in the incident. And then there is transformative justice, which looks at the broader system that contributed to the harm. So like, were there systemic issues that contributed to this bad behavior? Maybe their cultural, maybe leadership is modeling bad behavior and that's contributing to it. Maybe we're not publicizing what the standards of conduct are well enough. Maybe there are policy gaps and people are like, abusing policies or processes or lack. Maybe there's governance gaps and people are, the governance isn't clear and people are abusing the lack of clear governance, right? Those are all systemic issues that doesn't mean that somebody who engaged in bad behavior should be excused from it, but let's not just address that incident, right? If there are ways that we as a community can improve our processes, policies, culture to prevent similar incidents from happening in the future, that's really important work too. So our incident resolution procedures outline that that is something that the committee is going to look at and that they will escalate to the appropriate body with recommendations when they have those. Any other questions? Richard from an outfit called Uview. I was wondering sort of two oddly related questions. You said you were going philosophical, so let's try it. How do you handle the multiple different sort of sovereign jurisdictions that are gonna be relevant here because it strikes me that the complexity is huge. I mean, for example, did you know that hearsay of multiple degrees is admissible in English civil courts, right? There's a certain little shock Americans, right? And related to that, what's the trust model here? If you've got a situation where you have, the legal backstop is the backstop, you're like, right, I can take action. We don't have to agree on the rules here. We can go get this decided elsewhere, right? There's a lot of risk to the complainant there. Reputationally, lots of soft consequences and we're used to handling trust as a technical problem. Attempts at zero trust frameworks, nuclear diplomacy, anyone, right? Have been tried in the past. This is a really, really tough problem to solve. And I wondered, I think there's quite enough meat there, right? How do you relate the many different jurisdictions, the different ideas of fairness and justice that come out of that and problems of trust when you have a complainant versus a defendant? At least from my view and my experience, like we're creating our own jurisdiction here. We're creating our own community within the CNCF. That jurisdiction does overlap with a lot of different other jurisdictions, like you have lots of different countries all over the world that are participating and are coming from different legal backgrounds and even setting the legal questions aside, different cultures. There's different cultural norms across all the different countries and participants. You can even see that reflected in these conferences, the differences between the North America and EU conferences, we're going back to Shanghai this year. Like as we're holding these live events in different places, there are again different cultural norms around the world. Our goal though is to set the tone for what do we want in our community? This is a journey of self-definition for us to make sure that we uphold our values as the CNCF community that no matter what your background is, what country you're coming from, that this is a safe, open, inclusive and diverse place to contribute to our ecosystem. Where that intersects with the legalities and that kind of stuff, that I'll leave for Joanne if she wants to make any comments there. Like the Code of Conduct Committee through the CNCF staff like does have access to like lawyers and that kind of stuff. Like if we need to bring in other consultants, we can. But the ultimate goal for us, and as Joanne was saying when we were talking about like restorative justice, transformative justice in addition to more traditional incident resolution procedures, the goal there is to define that we want our community to be healthy. We want a community that everybody feels safe participating in. And it's up to us to kind of define what that looks like. And it's also up to us to make sure that we hold ourselves accountable to the values that we define. Yeah, I'll comment on a few different areas where trust I think is really, really important. You know, one is trust that the process is fair, right? And that's why we have such extensive documentation now, right, providing transparency to what that process looks like. There are a conflict resolution, there is a conflict of interest, very clear guidelines around what conflict of interest procedures are and recusals. And so that's setting up a fair process. There's also trust in the people who are upholding that process. And so having elected representatives, being evaluated by a due to occasion body that consists of your peers, I think is part of that as well. And then there's also, concerns around safe reporting and anonymity and confidentiality. And so for that reason, we have multiple paths for reporting, right? Somebody could email conduct at cncf.io, but that goes to everybody in the committee. And if some of those people have a conflict of interest, somebody may not be comfortable reporting that way. So you can also go to an individual committee member and say, hey, I wanna report this, but could you share the details of the incident, but not my identity as a reporter with the rest of the committee? They can also go to staff member and request that anonymity. They can also go to Colleen, who's an external consultant, who's not employed by the Linux Foundation as another source. And that adds yet another buffer around the confidentiality and anonymity. So we purposely structured it to really create a lot of safe options for reporting. So does that help address some of your questions around trust? Yeah, it does. And I don't wanna establish a massive turn for it because you've gone for a long time because it's so complicated. I thought that the big point was community health, in a way, material interest binds and is inescapable and is a reality because I think that the difference between structuring interests to foster trust and having sort of a formal process where you give accounts, those are two very different processes. I don't know if anybody's had the experience of sitting in some kind of training that's supposedly for fairness or justice or diversity and thinking this doesn't make any sense. Why am I doing this? And it suddenly makes a lot more sense when you realize that somebody has done a list of the training courses they've done. Put them in a bit of paper, put it in a filing cabinet and that comes out when you go to court. That's all it is, right? It's just a paper trial and it results in strange and often nonsensical experiences. Yeah, it's tricky. There are ways to, it's a matter of engineering aligning interests in fairness because otherwise, conversations enter a strange realm where what we're purportedly talking about, the point is not the conversation, the point is providing evidence to do something else because I'm not really talking to you about what I really think. So, now I'll put it out there, I'll give the microphone back. Any other questions? How many of you have reviewed the content with the GitHub repo? We would love, we would really love for you to review it as we are trying to wrap up the process. So give us feedback, tell us what is missing. Bring out the content, it's like what can we do to improve confidentiality? What can we do to build more trust? What can we do to make the process more just? I would also add on to that, that increasing the understanding between community members is essential to this. There are often times where there are individuals who believe very strongly that an interaction that they had is in violation of the code of conduct. And in some cases that is entirely accurate and it's up to the code of conduct committee to evaluate that and understand that. But not all the time. Sometimes there are occurrences and interactions within the community that don't quite meet that violation bar. But that doesn't mean that we don't act upon it. We take those opportunities to engage with the individual that was reported upon, to provide them the opportunity of understanding and learning and how their behavior was perceived by another individual. And in some cases that's also reaching back out to the reporter to have a conversation and a discussion with them about how we viewed that behavior collectively as a community and as a committee body. That way everybody is well-informed, expectations are being set, and that we can make adjustments or improvements moving forward for those kinds of processes. To date, this doesn't happen very often and it's not something I think that is talked about often enough because not everything is a violation, but everything is an opportunity to increase other individuals' awareness of their surroundings, the different cultures and personalities that they interact with, and how they might clash with each other. While teaching techniques, tactics, and potentially tips for engaging with people that come from a different background than you, how do you engage in that level of discussion with them? What are the best word choices that you can make and what is the tonality in written form because a lot of our communication is asynchronous and while you intend to be brief, it can sometimes come off as curt or rude. So those are some of the things that we try to engage in when things don't quite meet that bar. And this is also not, it's new. Like we're talking about this in the context of like we're creating a new code of conduct body at the CNCF, but it's not new in the sense of like these values have been around for a while in the CNCF. And the work, this type of work, these type of discussions have been held in different capacities, sometimes less formal. These are a lot of the inputs to what we're doing right now came from the Kubernetes Code of Conduct Committee that's been operating for years. We want to, the goal with this is to, number one, write a bunch of stuff down and code stuff so that there's common expectations. Everybody knows what the procedure is going to be as well as refine them for the cloud native community in 2023. Like what does the cloud native community look like right now? What are the needs of the cloud native community in 2023? And keep wondering, as I mentioned earlier, like these are going to be living documents. They encode a point in time right now as the community evolves and changes and grows as we learn new ways to resolve these kinds of incidents in a better way. We're going to go back and revisit these, but we want to seek as much feedback as we can right now in order to do the best that we can. Yeah, and I also just wanted to, this also addresses a question you had earlier about confusion around working group and Code of Conduct Committee. So for those of you who weren't around when this was announced, so there is currently an interim Code of Conduct Committee that has procedures very similar to the ones that the working group has been producing. So a lot of these procedures have been tested by the Interim Code of Conduct Committee. So the Interim Code of Conduct Committee was stood up roughly 10, 11 months ago to resolve incidents while we're developing them a permanent structure. So when this working group's work is completed and their elections and the new permanent Code of Conduct Committee is established, they will replace the Interim Committee and that committee will be disbanded. Yeah, and a couple of hands are up. And then you. You were in that before. I was just gonna mention that some actions are, I think, clearly things that the community would not want, but are harder to specify a red line about. For instance, if someone comes and just opens an issue and we don't spot it or other things are going on, that's one thing.  And so how do you view handling those kind of situations where there's clearly hostility? Maybe I have a business reason why I don't want certain people to participate in my project.  That's very against CNCF values, but isn't currently strictly forbidden by this policy. How does that get handled? So that's actually, we have a little bit of that in here about referring and recommendations to other bodies about some of these things that are going on. In particular, when situations like that occur and it's been active discussion over the past year or so that the Interim Code of Conduct Committee has been stood up is we are looking at making some changes and clarifying the responsibilities of an individual in any leadership position within the foundation. Up until this point, we have not done a good enough job expressing what those values and leadership roles are because when you take on a leadership position in any open source community, but especially in cloud native, you are acting in an authoritarian role over your community members. And that means to a lot of people that they have power, but that's not really what it is. You're in service to the community and that is something that we are trying to entrench in every single individual that takes on one of those roles or individuals that are interested in moving into those positions. As TOC chair, I've just had a conversation with several governing board members this past week about potentially providing training opportunities for individuals in leadership positions to set them up for success. Because what we don't wanna have happen is those individuals get into a position and go with their gut instinct, which is against the values that we hold for leaders. Yeah, there is some work really, there's work being done on refining and publicizing, communicating, like refreshing like what are the CNCF values and what are the principles that leaders of all leaders in the community need to adhere to. There are still some questions around, like if somebody violates the CNCF values, values around openness, transparency, vendor neutrality, et cetera, inclusivity, inclusive leadership, et cetera, like what's the path for resolution of that? Is that through the Code of Conduct Committee? Is that through the TOC? Is that through TAC Contribute Strategy? So there are some details around the actual enforcement that still need to be worked out, but I think the first step is getting very clearly communicated what are the principles and the values that we all need to adhere to in a special leadership. And one last comment before we move to the next question that I wanna say is like the various leadership groups that we have within the community and within the foundation, they care about that problem. And while we can say right now we have work to do as far as improving what those processes look like, the Code of Conduct Committee is like just one prong of that, like it will also be the TOC, it'll be the governing board, it'll be staff, it'll be all the different tags that are reviewing and working with all these projects, like all of those different bodies are working, or the goal is for them to all work together to that end that we are upholding our values and that we're displaying them, practicing them ourselves as we interact with all the various projects in the community. And yeah, I do wanna address your question of course, but I also just wanna comment that wherever the enforcement of that eventually is going to live, I will say that having had recent experiences through the Interim Code of Conduct Committee and work that Colleen has been doing, there is value in having some of these things that aren't necessarily clear violations go through the Code of Conduct Committee process because TOC members are like, they have a lot on their plates, right? And so having somebody like Colleen who has such a great background in restorative justice, in conflict resolution, et cetera, take the time to interview people one-in-one, gather feedback, collate that feedback, come back with a set of recommendations, have really taken the time to just set, like an individual TOC member is not gonna have time to conduct a dozen interviews and then review tons of evidence and then be like, oh, okay, oh, clearly there are these three principles that are lacking in our current documentation, but we have support to help us do that and the Code of Conduct Committee has those access to those, it's set up now to have those types of resources and so there can be a closer look with a higher touch through the Code of Conduct Committee, even if it's not the Code of Conduct Committee that ultimately is the one who like actually like implements the solution. Daniel. You kind of answered my question in the back and forth that happened after that, but I will say that as the Kubernetes Code of Conduct Committee, we spend an enormous amount of time doing the same kind of work of just like going and talking to people, hearing from new contributors who have a bad time and then we go and work with SIG leads to go and like make things better when we come. It's a huge amount of work though, so I'm glad you now have Colleen. I have spent like 30 hours outside of my like a regular day job some weeks on that, so. Yeah. It's a heavy list. Glad we have you now. Any further questions? We have about five minutes or so left. Daniel, would you mind passing to Colleen? Hello everyone. I just want to say that I deeply appreciate the work that's being done and I think it's a really important part of a community for community members to recognize that they're co-creative agents in living the values of the Code of Conduct. And so it's an opportunity for mutual learning for saying, well, what is diversity in action? And we always say in conflict resolution that leadership is not a title, it's a behavior. And so our way of being and acting is always in a dance with what is occurring and what occurs may occur differently for me than it occurs for someone else. So I also think that the Code of Conduct has an opportunity for all of us to really open up our perceptual lenses and be in a discovery mode of communication of what does it mean in practical real terms to live these values and to be open to having spaces to talk about this. Because the other thing is that we want to recognize that conflict is a normal part of the human experience. And so what's really going on when we have these push-pull dynamics with people and what is it that we can actualize as a community principle of moving into resolution and pathways of resolution that aren't punitive but where there's mutual learning. So I think that's one of the lived values of diversity is that an inclusion is that we're different. And so how do we lean in when we're different and actually come into commonality and basically join in the best of our humanity and live into the potential of these values that we all speak to, but to actually live them. We're about three minutes. I have about time for one more question if anybody has anything burning. Tells me we did a good job so far. So the call to action then. We have right now, there's one document that's like active revision that's our code of conduct, committee description and charter. There are the artifacts of like the other documents that we've been working on. If there are comments on really any of these right now, you can, the primary place to go and like view the work that's being done right now is on GitHub on the working group COC repository. There's discussions in there so you can like look at what's been discussed so far, some of the feedback that we've received from various stakeholders, what we've done as far as trying to triage and resolve that feedback. There's open PRs right now for that description and charter that again is open for active comment. If you find anything that's like interest, you wanna leave a comment, you can either do it there publicly or come track down one of us and have a conversation. I think that's where a lot of, I would say some of the most valuable feedback that I've had has been in those conversations where someone comes with like maybe an incomplete thought and wants to like flush out, okay what does this actually mean in practice? How do we get some of these, sometimes fuzzier concepts down to writing? Can you tell people again where to be able to go find that? So there's probably gonna be a link in the slides when we post this, but also I just wanted to make sure. github.com slash cncf slash working wg-coc or there's a Slack channel on the, that one. See that was a lot, that's all I wanted to be like, hey where are we going? Perfect. Thank you. You can also find us on cncf and kubernetes Slack if you have trouble with github or you just wanna be anonymous in your feedback where our DMs are open. I've talked to a lot of community members about these kinds of things. So if you're interested or you wanna have a discussion on it or you wanna understand what the impact is, we're all here. We're listening. We wanna make sure that this works for everyone. Or as you were saying, talk to any one of us here or remotely. Thank you everyone for coming. Thank you. Thanks everyone.


Good morning. We're doing things about reverse. Jay was talking about doing, I'm talking about planning to do. So, reverse engineering the actual way we should be doing this, probably. I'm going to talk to you a little bit about our journey to having a digital preserve installation framework. A Victoria University of Wellington libraries, We've recently adopted a digital preservation framework that I wrote. This framework is what I consider to be a vital part of our policy environment and will underpin our digitisation programme, our digital archiving programme and the management of our delivery of our digital assets. So we got to, we knew we wanted a digital preservation framework, we had digital objects, I needed to figure out what to write in a policy thing to what we wanted to do. And I knew that what I wanted to do was to create a policy framework, I couldn't call it always a policy framework strategy, something like that, that would be, we could use immediately, quickly, and be able to start from, but wouldn't answer all the questions. A lot of the questions Jay was asking, I didn't want to answer in this thing, in the framework itself, but I wanted to have a framework which would give us steerage when we actually came to answering those questions. So I had to start with this and I wanted to, so where did I have to start on this? So this is going to start my programme, my presentation is going to wobble a little bit into me discovering about digital preservation and then into what I ended up writing into the framework. So I had to figure out what digital preservation was. And I was going to sell it to the wider environment, so there's an example of some of the digital objects that we have in the library that we needed to preserve. So where did I start? For me actually digital preservation begins way back in the past, back in the long days of antiquity as it were. When people had, because digital preservation, while it's a new thing, which is part of an old story. And that story is about sharing stories and content. So back then they wanted to do, they wanted to share things and they didn't know, and how did they share it? They shared it by talking about it, this is before writing. They put pictures on, pictures onto walls as you were. So access to stories, which we're going to be very big importance in digital preservation, is access, it's not just preserving it for preserving sake, it's preserving it so you can access the content. So access to the stories was limited to being able to listen to someone who knew the story or visiting the cave and being able to interpret the picture. And so many stories were passed along and many were lost. Later on we got writing and writing was invented and images moved from paintings on the walls to calvestone to clay to papyrus and then later to paper. The story was preserved as early people collected and stored these stories in early libraries. Digital preservation actually sort of starts here because it begins to take from here not only the idea of preserving and accessing the story but the beginnings of making many of the concepts which are central to the libraries and archives, description and discovery, which is important for digital preservation as well. As we go on in this old, ancient narrative, there was... I've just lost my fort. Sorry. As we moved on, there comes to another part of the narrative which was very important, which is in the Western world in 1450, Gutenberg invented the printing press while in the East Bay Shing invented the printing press around 400 years earlier in 1041. In the West the printing press had a profound impact on the preservation and access of the story so much so that Gutenberg is credited as the father of printing press despite Shing's invention 400 years prior. Many books could then be printed and accessed. Our stories were spread more widely but our ideas of how we accessed and preserved those stories was also being developed. Those works were stored and accessed in many more libraries and archives. Many can be still accessed today although you might have to learn a new language to read them. This goes back to what Jay was doing there. Even if it was originally written in English, you might not actually be able to read it because old English is different to modern English. Which is when we're linked back to digital preservation. A key question is raised. Can we access the content even if we can access the artefact? For with the written words, some stories have journeyed from the earliest days and are transmitted and translated to allow access to a new generation. In the digital world, we need to start asking will technology be able to read the contents of the file? How can we do this? The narrative continues on and we come to the 20th century which technology allows us for transmission of ideas further and easier than before. Here we've got a screenshot from the NZTC where we have the official war history of the Wellington Mounted Rifles Regiment in 1914-1919 originally it was printed in a paper. It's now been preserved digitally as it were and made into a digital artefact which we give to you all on the internet through the NZTC. But we now then have to figure out how do we preserve that artefact and how do we ensure that the content of this carries on into the future. So that's when we came to developing the digital preservation. So this is what we said. We said we have these artefacts like this. We want to ensure that in 100 years I always talk about 21-14, 100 years from now, the person in my job at uni hopefully it's going to be there, hopefully somebody's going to be doing my job and thinking that it's important. How are they going to ensure that those things that we've created now are still accessible. So that's what we wanted to do in the digital preservation area make sure that these objects continue to be accessible and also to make sure that people knew what was going on. So the core part of the digital preservation framework that I wrote contains basically 14 principles which I'm going to sort of work through now for you. Some of them may be relevant to you, some of them are a little bit specific to us but in general they give you a flavour of what we're trying to achieve within it. I mean the first principle of course is that digital preservation is a critical library process. I would put that in there. I think it's pretty essential and that's probably one of the big sales. Hopefully I've sold it well enough to the rest of the library and I think there's a general acceptance now that it is because basically if we're going to continue to provide access to our unique digital objects we need to preserve them. It's chicken and egg, self-explanatory in some way but also a little bit, not so. So the next bit is that the second principle is that the library adopts three levels of a free level view of digital preservation. Primary preservation, secondary preservation and descriptive preservation. This was my little way of encapsulating what I thought it was all about. Some of you may disagree but this is what I've sold to the library. So the first level is the most basic and easily understood primary preservation. This is where you back your files up. Simple as that, you're taking it and you're ensuring you've got multiple copies. It's simple, easily and understood. The second, however, is a lot more difficult to come to grips with and it's a bit of what again Jay was doing. This is where we look at a digital object and we start to ask about having systems to check that the files stay uncorrupted.  We look at systems to check file obsolescence. Is it in Word 1? When we've got Word 10 now, can Word 10 read Word 1? If we can't, how do we do that? So this is all about putting in place systems and starting the conversations where we can have and we can identify objects and say we have this collection of objects, how do we save it, how do we make sure that it continues to be accessible. When we've put things up on the Internet, how do we ensure that they stay uncorrupted? How do we preserve the integrity of those objects? The last level is a bit which I get quite passionate about, which is the descriptive preservation. This is where we make sure we can tell the story of the object. To me it's all very well having an object there and knowing that you can access it. But in a hundred years, the researcher and the person who's curating that needs to also know why that object's there, what rights are around that object originally, what rights have been transformed, what decisions have been made to make it more accessible. So if it was originally in a one sort of proprietary format and you had to transform it once that came obsolete and then you transformed it again, if you have the original, and then the access copy later, the path that has led to there. So to me, this part of telling the story about the object is as integral as the technical bits of preserving the actual thing so you can open them. So this is talking about we not only want to collect descriptive metadata for the object, but also the technical metadata and then the metadata around the metadata. So that's the bit that I get really passionate about. The third principle is probably a little bit library-centric for us. This is about we want to minimise the number of systems and environments we maintain. We're a small team. We've only got so many resources. So we want to make sure we minimise our application creep to maximise our development potential. Also the more systems we have in place, the more complex preservation is going to be. Our fourth one was each new proposal for preservation should be considered against the existing framework solutions and new options should be explored. So while wanting to restrict the number of solutions and complexity of the environment that we have, we still need to be flexible in our approach and look at new technologies. It's always a matter with digital, anything digital really, not just digital preservation, that one size doesn't fit all and we need to keep that in mind. The next principle, the preservation of metadata around the digital objects is as important as the preservation of the digital objects themselves. As you can tell, that's pretty important to me. So I managed to get, include that in there. So this is really trying to emphasise that the narrative around the stories is just as important as technical ability to do the preservation. Again, the sixth principle is very much an internally focused one, which is the internal digital preservation as the preferred option. This doesn't preclude using external vendors for digital preservation. Indeed, often having a tertiary external digital preservation service can be advantageous. The more places they store, the better, as it were. Rather, this is saying in the first instance, we want to have our internal digital preservation done in-house properly, and that really needs to be done first, so that we can have surety that when we've got something in-house, we're dealing with it and how we want to deal with it. The seventh is that where possible current digital objects can be considered archival copies and access copies. This is again an internal one where we were saying, we're trying to say, we've done things in the past, we can't second-guess that, we need to move forward, so we're going to draw a line about what we've got in there and say, well, is this archival or access, can it be? Yes, probably it can. We'll just say that now this is it, and we can move on from that. One of the things that sort of unforeseen things that fall out of doing a digital preservation is, we've actually started to look at our actual digitisation way we digitise things. When we start to look at, well, what's an archive copy, what's an access copy, how are we going to preserve this for the future and trying to preserve it for the future needs of our researchers, we have to ensure that when we digitise something, we're digitising it so that it meets those needs. We said that the library will implement best practice standards for archival access copies for all digital objects. So this is one which actually we've already implemented is where previously we may have thought, well, we can just digitise to a JPEG level at a certain level, because it will create easy access. We're now changing all of our digitisation to the best practice ones for, like, tiffs for images at the highest resolution, and we're preserving those as archival copies and saying, well, we can have the archival copy and we preserve it and we keep it, and then we can make access copies which can then do all sorts of different things with where we haven't done that previously. It means that we don't actually have the ability to do future needs of our researchers where we may not have a best quality archival copy of an image that we had done previously. So this has had an immediate impact on how we actually act in our digitisation. They're sort of both related. So we wanted one and the library will implement and we will do it. So there we go. We're going to have the best practice archival copy and best practice access copy. And that's when it flowed on to principle 10 where we will endeavour to capture the best quality standard metadata as well. Both technical and descriptive. We're creating new digital objects and accepting the deposit of digital objects. So we're going to start trying to ask our depositors when we fall like our theses to ensure that they've got the best quality metadata they've can put into their PDFs and stuff so that we can then bring that out. We're putting the best quality of our metadata when we capture things internally. Making sure so that we can tell that story and that we know what's happened when and where and later on we can come back and see what's happened when and where. The 11th. So this is where we start to get the nitty-gritty of secondary preservation. And this basically allows us to do what Jay was doing. Is when we can start to look at where I said we wanted to have something that we can implement immediately but not get bogged down in the details. 11 is where we start to say we're going to do bogged down in the details and we're referring back to 11 to do it. So that's pretty much going to be one of our big focuses coming up in the future establishing procedures around quality control of existing digital objects and looking at what we do. 11. Principle 12 was emulation should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Relates back to the ability to access access copies. How do you access programs? How do you access things that were created in a specific environment? It's very... 13. The library maintains a registry of collections and related knowledge base. This one's, of course, really close to my little narrative heart. As you can tell where I bang on about the story of the object. This is about creating ability so that what we can do is that researchers or administrators can go in and look at an object and say it was digitised then this is the story about how it was digitised, why it was digitised, what rights were there, what programmes, what transformations it may have had. Very, very close to what I want to do. Lastly, and certainly not least, the future planning is central to the process of digital preservation. I've heard some people talk about a quote from somebody who I won't say it was but say that they thought that digital preservation had been done. It was all good. I cannot agree with that. Digital preservation has never done. Digital preservation will always be a problem as new technologies come about, as new things happen, as things become obsolete, as new ways of storing come about. So digital preservation is one of the central things is future planning. As you're trying to second-guess the future, you can't do it. So you try and create an environment that is flexible and adaptive and is looking as future-focused as possible to actually try and meet those needs. So all these principles come together to frame how we in the library will approach digital preservation. We're starting to ensure that our digitisation programme meets the best archival practice and that as we digitise we are not only digitising for access now but access in the future. We are looking at how best to develop systems and processes that will ensure the integrity of the work and the future custodians will have the surety of knowing not only that the resources are accessible but also that the story of how and why those resources are kept. That these future custodians will see that we've not only sought to preserve for preservation sake at the moment but also for future access and that we've looked at best as we can to ensure that those unknowable future research needs can be met. In conclusion, I hope you can see that we've sought to balance strategy with pragmatism in establishing these principles. Immediate action with governance and to create a framework that enables us to start immediately work on digital preservation and to give us steerage for the future. And that's my presentation. Thank you very much. I've had some questions but I've been asked to use the microphone so pass it around. Hi, Michael at Sherry from AUT. Are you interested to know if you looked at other frameworks or other principles or did you come up with this yourselves? I spent six months reading. So I looked at other principles, I looked at other strategic frameworks, I looked at the I borrowed, I did look at, I looked at the National Libraries one, I looked at various ones from overseas and then I drafted and redrafted and went through a long process of negotiating with other staff as they wanted to put what they wanted in and to dress frame it so that the whole library can accept that what I was saying was actually meaningful and was what we wanted as a library to progress forward with. Yes, I did look at other funds. Joanna, Canterbury Museum. Do you also have a policy that gives you guidelines on what types of digital material to collect or are you only concerned about the digital material you already have in your perspective? There's a collection policy which looks at what we collect but basically, which basically says we collect anything that's relevant to the subject area for the IRs, we try and collect in PDF but then collect all the associate materials in the original content for purposes of collection, if you want to collect what you collect and what people want to donate and what's coming. We're guided, we're looking at, we do ask in some ways we're looking at how we can ask when people deposit their thesis about getting them to do PDF A and then PDFs and how we transfer, if we can get from them in archival and in access copy and so we're looking at that sort of thing and basically, there's a collection policy which governs what is collected this is about what we preserve and how we preserve it. Hi, Kirstie at Turnbull Library. I was just interested, it's a bit going on from what Joanna just talked about but accepting around digital deposits, I mean for us we don't really have any control what comes in until it comes on our desk and so determining things like I don't know, sort of like you were talking about PDFs and so forth but that's just a piece, so imagine you collect a lot more than that and well you would like to collect a lot more than that in the digital sphere and it's very hard we decided not to put those kind of limitations on the types of digital objects we received so as a result we do receive quite a fear array but yeah, it's something that's once you start doing it, I think you really realise the whole game you're in. Yes, no, that's fair of point. We know that we can't tell people, especially academic students, what to actually give us. We can give them best guidelines and give them best practice things but in the end we have to accept what they will give us. We are developing for the IR in itself, a self-deposit type of thing where they can deposit digitally online and part of how we're doing that is that for the actual thesis itself they can only deposit a PDF but everything else, all the supplementary ones can be any format so through that we can access a little bit of control over what we get in the form of the actual PDF at the actual thesis itself but we can't really control anything else and we can only, the best we can do is give really clear guidelines and we can say look this is what we want to do, this is why we're doing it please listen I was interested in where you're saving the preservation copies and do you state that in your policy that it's stored in here or off-site or No, it's not actually stated in there because I didn't want to get down to that particular level that's the nitty-gritty that we need to do in but part of the on-flow from actually creating this is now that we're looking at how we're looking at bombs, dams, however you want to put it digital object to the management system which will be the centerpiece of us actually implementing a digital preservation in action so that flows from it but it's not articulated in it does that make sense? Well just to clarify it's stored on your servers at Vic At the moment yes and no intention of having it somewhere else protected That is a part of the future planning from it so in the first instance we want to make sure that we're preserving internally first and that's part of creating a doms or dams after we've done that we will then also look at whether what we can do about tertiary and going out and storing it externally as well so it's a long convoluted path to start on so for us and for where I wanted to what we could achieve is starting first internally and then moving outwards because of course if you try and store it externally there's costs involved and then you have to talk about budgetary things and that gets complex quickly Thanks Would it be correct to assume that all members of console are doing the same applying the same principles? I could not possibly comment Just wondered I would like to be able to say yes Hi Sam from National Library I'm just following on from that because one of the principles was we want to do it ourselves and I was just wondering what work you're doing with console or with National Library because it seems to me to make sense this is something which you should be trying to do together rather than yourself and use your thoughts on that In a perfect world it would be really nice to be able to do everything externally in partnership with other institutions How can I say that without getting in trouble? I don't want to get in trouble so basically every institution has their own drivers and their own people in front and top and they all have their own priorities so the danger with trying to go in the first instance to do a big one like that is that other institutions might have different drivers and different pressures on them to do things which may mean that it could make it a much longer project than it needs to be or you may not get what you actually need so in the first instance what I was trying to do with saying that internal first is that if we can have surety and a knowledge of how we're handling it internally then later on when something comes out in the future and we want to look at external things then we know we've got a fallback position if we don't have a fallback position and we try and rely on external factors which could go along a path and spend 24 months on a project that doesn't go anywhere we're back to square one so if we start at the beginning ourselves internally then if we get on to if we get that first then we can move forward I'm all about getting ourselves first and making sure we're doing right we want to do properly so that afterwards we can say let's go do other things and explore other options and see what exciting things we can do we have talked to the National Library about doing some pilots for their digitisation for some of the stuff on the NZTTC so we have had talks about that Never had to use one before in my life but what I find interesting is that when you're talking about your IR is it not just purely for your students to submit theses as well as for your lecturers to submit their articles and stuff that they're publishing because that's how our IR works at Waikato it's not to have other things kind of submitted that we may feel we would like to preserve well we want to preserve everything in the IR because it's integral archival and it's an essential part of what we do is the IR isn't just a holding place for theses it's some people it's the IR what we want comes into the IR is every research output from the university ideally what we want in there is every research output and I talk about the IR in all of this because to me it's a digital object we want to make sure that we're treating all of our digital objects which are archival and we have a curate meaning the same so for me when I talk about some of the other stuff as well it's talking about the whole lot holistically does that make sense? I just wonder because one of the things we're in discussions at the moment of looking at we have a lot of old more archival content that we are looking at wanting to digitise and predominantly audio at this stage but we are wanting to keep it completely separate from our IR because of the policies that surround that it is actually not the appropriate place for it to go because it's not hooked into research or into the PBRF so we are looking at setting up something that is separate where you don't have those restrictions and that's why I find it interesting when you're talking about IR because I thought they had similar restrictions in place for theirs well when I talk about a dom's dams for our digital objects basically the way I see it is what I want to create is for one place where we store all of our digital objects and we treat them with the same digital preservation systems and from that if we've done it properly then we can create an IR instance outside of it so if we have everything like our audio other research outputs our NZETC the IR content in a single digital object sort of management place we can then apply a consistent level of metadata across it a consistent level of practice for our digital preservation across it and then from that we can then say create a separate thing to come in and look at that and say these are the objects in there that consist of our IR and expose them out so we don't that's trying to also minimise the number of systems that we have in the place because at the moment we have three or four to five or six different systems doing the same thing differently so that's part of the framework is to try and do that