As Jeremy said that the timing is really good because what I plan to talk to you about was what happened when we did decide to let our contract lapse with Elsevier two years ago. And fortunately I can kind of complete the story today at least to this point. So really it shows you that not only was the strategy a viable one but that it has led to what we hope is a very good outcome. So let me just start briefly by setting some context for the University of California for those who aren't intimately familiar with it so you understand our approach and can think about how that maps to your own institution and are all UK. So the University of California is the largest public research university in the United States California is the largest state in the country and so not surprisingly it's flagship university is also very very large so we have 10 campuses and five medical centers that's important in this story. A very large number of students, faculty and staff. So the community is as close to 500,000 people all together. Our research expenditures are in the order of five, probably more now billion dollars a year this is research grant funding that the university receives and I'm sure you all know that in the US research is funded through federal agencies that give grants to individual researchers, and then they spend that money on their research so very very little is centrally funded through universities directly. UC is also a publishing powerhouse our faculty and other researchers publish around 50,000 articles a year 50% as corresponding author, and that constitutes around 10% of all research publications coming out of the US so this we are a very large customer for these scholarly publishers. We also because of the size of the University of California we have a very well defined shared governance model with faculty so there is an academic senate or faculty senate whatever you call it at your institution. Every campus has one of those so my campus Davis is one of them. And then the whole university has one we call that a system wide committee. So and that's important because they're very active and all the faculty at the University of California, more or less deferred to their decisions on policy issues. So we know who to work with on faculty issues and get to get their feedback and their support. We worked at other institutions before the University of California and it wasn't as clear which faculty were really the influencers and decision makers. So that's been a benefit to us in this whole process. In particular there's a committee called the University of California committee on library and scholarly communications which is the faculty library committee. We have worked with them for decades on these policy and other issues relating to faculty. There is also a Council of University librarians that I sit on and that's the 10 University librarians and the executive director of the California Digital Library. And we serve as the system wide committee that strategizes for the UC libraries. We've done that for many, many years. Very effectively we call that the power of 10, because if any one campus like mine. Tried to go it alone, you know we would get so far but as a system with 10 institutions, many of which are in the top 10 institutions in the country, over half of the UC campuses are in the top 10 public institutions in the US. Together, we form quite a powerhouse when it comes to negotiating and so on. So now I'm going to tell you the Elsevier saga, because it's illustrative of, well, what you're about to go through. And it kind of paints what was interesting about our approach as a good example. So I'll just give you a very quick review of the timeline of all this. I think for many of you like me covert has kind of zapped my sense of timescale. It's as if 2020 never happened. So, so I have to remind myself all the time, what was going on throughout this process. And as early as 2013, our faculty Senate decided to create a policy that all faculty publications would be made publicly available with open access, using the green model of self deposit in our institutional repository which is called the scholarship. And even before 2013 faculty were very active in pressuring publishers including Elsevier and spring nature into working with the University of California to improve our deal so that there's a long history of activism there, and positive positioning on open access. In 2015 16, I actually led a project a research project called pay it forward with ID Anderson from the California Digital Library. And we were looking at financial models for open access with the emerging gold model of article publishing charges that authors pay. We wanted to look and see whether that model would work well in the United States and other North American and Canada, particularly as a as a financial model for sustainable at scale open access publishing and and our conclusion was yes but with certain criteria which I'll get into in a minute. So, so we decided that that was the experiment we wanted to try. And we got the faculty Senate engaged with planning with us. That led into the negotiations that began, as Jeremy said back in 2018 when our contract was coming up for renewal. The contract expired in December. We didn't renew it but we continued to negotiate for a few more months. And then, right around February March we decided this is not going anywhere. We're done with that.  I, for various reasons which you'd have to ask Elsevier about. And then a lot of time went by. What happened, you know, there was a lot of discussion about it but the world didn't end, the sky didn't fall. Researchers worked around this situation. We went on about our business signed quite a few other open access deals. And then back in June, Elsevier reappeared and we started negotiating again and that's what got us here today so that's kind of the arc of this whole thing. And I'm going to be talking specifically about what happened from December on to get us to this point. So the framework that we developed had with the faculty had a few high level goals when was we had to get our expenses down we were paying quite a lot of money for Elsevier subscriptions not as much as some institutions but still quite a lot of money. And we wanted to make open access the default option for faculty publications going forward. So we required a transformative what we call a transformative agreement that that brought those two together into a single contract and this is not new to any of you. So what was a little different about our flavor of that is that we wanted the combo contract where our subscription spend would go down as we spent more money from the library's budget on open access publishing fees and we wanted to end the so we called double dipping, because one of the trends we saw is that the library's subscription fees were high and increasing. Well the authors at our institutions were spontaneously paying these article processing charges and it crossed the million dollar mark back in 2018 so that is completely double dipping you know they're paying to publish open access and we're paying to subscribe to the same article. That was one of the trigger points for this. And we had this interesting multiplayer model, you know, if you're not familiar with the US healthcare system. This may sound very strange but in this model. The library pays some of the fee, and the author pays the rest of the fee. The idea is that it will make authors more aware of the cost of publishing, and a little bit more savvy when it comes to deciding which journal they want to publish in, they'll be at least conscious of the cost involved because they're paying a share of it. Traditionally from a research grant which allows that this multiplayer model according to our projections would be financially sustainable at scale over the long haul, if it works out the way we hope. So, we got together with the faculty and spent, you know, at least a year working on this framework and working on other aspects of our strategy. For example, we don't just want to work with large commercial publishers that have these hybrid journals that charge a fee to publish we also want to work with fully gold journals like the public library of science and with societies that are trying to to self publish their journals in new ways and so on so it's it's not exclusive to things like Elsevier, or to companies like Elsevier. And so the faculty library committee came up with a declaration with 18 principles that they wanted to adhere to the University of California is Provost who's the senior academic officer for the whole UC system issued a call to action. And that was when we announced that we were going to renegotiate our contract with Elsevier when we had that faculty support solidly behind us and when we had the university's administration backing us. So, one of the key findings and this whole thing was how important it was to communicate to the faculty. Early and often. So we made ourselves present at lots and lots of faculty senate meetings we had open meetings for all the faculty and researchers on campuses we sent broadcast emails and open letters I spent a huge amount of time, carefully crafting letters to the faculty explaining what was going on and why it was okay and what we were doing to support them and so on. We required actually dedicated staff working on communications at various points in this process to make sure everybody understood what was happening. And as you can see from the article on the right. The media notice that one of the differences between our negotiation and some of the others in the US is that our faculty were very well informed and supportive of what we were doing. The other ways that we achieve that was through a lot of media outreach outside of the university because we've noticed that faculty in particular will get very interested in something that they read about in a national newspaper or regional newspaper like the LA Times. You can tell them something 10 times but when they read about it in the newspaper, especially if it's a positive article then that can really make a difference in their feelings about what's happening and what all of this did was lead to a real sense of pride. In the faculty that you see was doing this and that we were you know standing up to this publisher and really trying to do the right thing and the media were helpful in making that case.  But the first thing that happened is a lot of faculty joined forces and decided to boycott Elsevier and refuse to serve on their editorial boards or do peer review and some of them even wouldn't publish articles with Elsevier and the libraries to do this we never asked the faculty to boycott the company, but they had just reached a point where they felt ownership of what was happening and they decided that they wanted to stand up for what you see wanted. I don't know if you can see Jennifer Doudna just got the Nobel Prize for CRISPR. So that's an example of the kind of people that we had supporting what we were trying to do but remember that that was the outcome of you know six or seven years of working with them to get them to that point. So then what happened in practice so we get data from Science Direct about how many so called turn a ways there are that's people trying to get to an article and hitting a paywall. January 2019 is before the cut off you can see the, the number of turn a ways was very small. Six months later a year later were six months into the cut off and actually the numbers not that much higher. So, definitely an uptick. That's quite a few more than there were before the shut off but not a huge number. Corresponding to that is the ILL statistics that we have so we've been tracking very carefully the ILL usage from before the cut off through till now. And this is a graph of it so what you see with the blue line is the complete all of our ILL. And those large peaks on the left are from before the pandemic. And that just shows you kind of a normal life cycle during an academic year with the two big peaks. And then the right side of the graph is post pandemic. And interestingly ILL despite the fact that everybody is working from home ILL statistics just went way down. So, in general, Elsevier is the orange line and as you can see that has held steady pretty much throughout but what's interesting about this is that you know from the beginning way over here on the left, it wasn't very high. It increased slightly now and then and gradually crept up to about 1000 per, what is this, two weeks, two periods. And we were quite worried about that because of course with ILL, at least here, if you cross a certain number of requests for certain articles then you have to pay a copyright fee it can get quite expensive and there was a lot of hand wringing about. Would we be able to afford to do this through our traditional services the answer is absolutely yes. It wasn't expensive. About six months in one of the things I pushed hard for was a sentiment poll of the faculty. So here we are in January of 2020. Roughly, and this is also pre pandemic, but we we just did a survey of the whole system so all 10 campuses and pretty much all the different types of academics that would typically use Elsevier journals. So we included faculty but also postdoctoral students or postdocs, graduate students, researchers and medical residents and staff because I'm sure many of you know that Elsevier journals include a lot of the key titles in the health sciences and they're heavily used by clinicians and medical students. And of course not surprisingly there was a high impact in the health disciplines which I'll talk about a little bit more in a minute. But what's interesting in these two pie charts is that the impact was about one third saying it was a significant impact and almost half saying well yeah, there's been some impact on me. And then this one on the right is the alternative access methods so we asked people well if you're not getting journal articles from Science Direct how are you getting them. And about almost a third here in this kind of light blue slice said I just gave up. I didn't try to get it. I found something else I could use. Another almost 30% said I found a copy online somewhere is good enough for me. And a lot asked a colleague who had access to Science Direct, and then another big chunk contacted the author, and this turned out to be anecdotally something that was kind of surprising and that is a lot of younger academics actually appreciated the reason to contact the corresponding author and make that connection to them and found that almost everybody would provide a copy of their article, happily, if somebody asked for it, which which we found a bit surprising. And then only 14% were availing themselves of our inner library loan service which which we found really interesting. The goal was that why how they felt about our situation remember this is January so we're six months in to the cut off. Just about 40% said they strongly supported UC schools, and then another 25% said well yeah it's a little inconvenient but I understand what UC is trying to accomplish, and I'm working around it. And that was that key demographic of people who would have been annoyed but we had done such a thorough job of making sure that the faculty knew what was happening and generally supported our position that they, they had this response. Another 17% I'm waiting to see how it will turn out so only 14%. And this is remember this is across a couple hundred thousand academics only 14% said this is frustrating. Right, that is very telling. The huge split between the health and non health disciplines, and that's important to understand because certainly at my institution, the hospital the medical center and the medical school are very important they bring in a ton of research money. So how they feel about this is really key. They were not happy campers so in the health system about. Well, it was the same breakout there was a healthy chunk almost a quarter saying I'll wait to see another chunk saying it's inconvenient but I'll deal with it, but 24% saying no this is really frustrating and 18% saying I, oh sorry, the 18% is the strongly support. So still we have the majority supporting us, but we see a pretty big slice saying now this is really frustrating and those are the people I was hearing from all the time, those those faculty that this was you know just unacceptably inconvenient for them, but it's it is a minority view. So in the health sciences is even stronger this this 45% slice is the you go, you know, we're with you. And then it diminishes down through the different categories but but we could see from this that six months in we still had very strong support for what we were doing, and then another year and a half go by and here we are with a new deal. So, I'll just briefly review what the terms of that deal were. I was just saying that the contract for this will be publicly available. One of our principles of negotiating this time was no nondisclosure agreements. So everything we did and agreed to is public information. We're just at the point of completing the memorandum of understanding so we don't have that contract and writing yet but you know, we know the terms of the deal and as Jeremy said, there may be interest in knowing more of the details and we can do that but probably not today it's a really complicated contract really really complicated. It takes a while to kind of walk through all of the different terms and conditions, but I'll just give you some of the high level stuff so first of all we have reading access with no fee for all of their journals. There I think we're four or five societies that just refuse to be part of this agreement. And that was it. Certainly of the English Language Journal I think there were a couple of European publishers non English that also opted out but the vast 99.99% of Elsevier journals are included in that reading access through Science Direct. We also got 100% open access for our corresponding authors, including cell press titles and the Lancet titles, which is as far as we know the first ever. That is open access publishing within article processing charge but we did negotiate a discounted article processing charge for authors. And this, the sum total of the agreement reduces our baseline spend with Elsevier from what it was two years ago with ongoing cost controls. So, I guess when you see the contract you'll see that the bottom line is we were paying a little less than we were before but we're getting a lot more for the money. And they've agreed to implement our multi payer model with that discount so that there's an APC for the journal but it's discounted by Elsevier and then the library subsidy is applied, and the author pays the balance. If the author can't pay the balance, the library will cover 100% of the fee. That's one of those details that we hope to get a lot more information about over the next four years is I should have said that it's a four year contract is how well will authors support that particular financial model. There are other benefits if the publication volume increases so lots more articles are published in their journals and authors are paying a share of the APC so there are cost controls for the library. But on the author side, you know, they, if there is more published than Elsevier can get some of that revenue. So, three important things are that the library and faculty work together on the negotiations there were faculty on our negotiating team. And while we didn't necessarily want exactly the same things as our top priority, we did develop shared priorities. So we, you know, the balance between trying to get cost savings versus trying to get more open access versus trying to get the right licensing terms. So there was a constant discussion within the UC's negotiating team, and that meant that we were on the same page with the negotiations with the publisher. So that deal that we got does respond to those 18 principles that the faculty had defined, including things like what rights authors can retain and the transparency of the whole deal. And that was really important to keep them engaged and involved in this process. So I would be remiss if I didn't point out that it's not just about Elsevier. This is our model for all publishers and all negotiations going forward. So we've already signed eight other agreements Elsevier is our ninth, including some fairly important publishers in the research library world so the Association of Computing Machinery. Cambridge University Press was actually our first open access contract under this model with the multi payer model in place. Some smaller journals, some gold journals like public library of science and JMI are most recently the Royal Society and then maybe a few months ago, Springer Nature, that was our first major commercial publisher and these are all very similar kinds of agreements to what I just described. Ultimately, we would like to have deals like this with every publisher, and we continue to work on our overarching pathways to open access plan which includes things like working with societies to help them shift to open access and whatever way makes sense for them. So, so it isn't just these big publisher negotiations but of course they're what catches the public attention, and also what the faculty feel the most. So to summarize all of that. It was really important that we had very clear goals for the negotiations that were broken out into specific terms that we wanted and a plan for that so being prepared on the same page aligned with the faculty that was critical. And I said this a million times already but having that solidarity with the research community community was, in our case, really, really important because they supported what we were doing they didn't try and go around our backs to, you know, make side deals we actually got all of our campuses and their different schools and colleges to agree not to resubscribe to any else of their journals while we were negotiating or out of contract, which trust me was very tempting to them to just go and get that journal back that they missed but they didn't do that. It turned out that alternative access provision was not a big deal I think a lot of researchers got very creative and how they found copies of articles, but they did confess that it wasn't the most convenient way for them to get access to this stuff they they missed the convenience of getting things through science direct, particularly in the health sciences. That constant communication is something that we hadn't necessarily really thought about before this all started but it was so clear from the beginning that it was making a huge difference that we just ended up dedicating a lot of resources to to doing that to this day. And so that's about it for my presentation and I'm going to stop sharing my screen now. And open it up for Q&A. Thank you for your attention. Thank you very much Mackenzie I mean that was absolutely fascinating. Certainly from again from a UK perspective I could see things which was quite nice that we clearly have thought about and we picked up on some of the things you've identified as being important and strengths and the way you approach negotiation but clearly a range of other things we can, we can learn from from that which is great. And obviously what's enormously impressive is the kind of preparation work you've done over years to get yourself into a position where you had a community which was going to be ready I guess and supportive enough to take things forward. Got a couple of good some more questions coming in so please keep them out quite quickly now which is nice thank you. That always happens. Just one question to kick us off so I mean, you talked a lot about the advocacy piece I said I thought that was really good, but it was interesting in your chart that the health professionals were perhaps the least satisfied during the lockdown. When we talk about it we think about COVID it's the health professionals who benefited most from open access to content. Yes. That surprised you is there's some particular feature about the health professionals or had your communication perhaps not worked as well what was your reflection on that. I think it was just they were just telling us the truth that our health faculty are some of the strongest open access advocates on any campus, you know that it is life or death to them and covered has definitely illustrated that you all know right that the publishers dropped their paywalls for covered research and made it all open access because that was the right thing to do. The health faculty were telling us is that to them a little friction is a problem. You know for a lot of researchers having to wait a day or two to get your article. It's no big deal. But for some health science faculty, well there's sort of candidly there's two things going on here one is people who just think they're the most important people in the world and that you know they shouldn't wait for anything ever. There's a huge number of those but you know there's always some, and then there are people for whom it really is a problem. They're standing at a patient's bedside and they need to see this article now, you know. So, we had a, we did develop a really enhanced ILL service and emergency service where someone could submit a request for an article and we would get it within an hour or two. And that took a lot of work to set that up but it turned out it wasn't needed very often but when it was needed it was incredibly appreciated. Does that answer your question. Yeah, that's fantastic. Thank you for for going on that. Okay, so we do have quite a number of questions coming through so let's just start off with those first one at the top is. But during the day I suppose the the downtime when you didn't have the agreement, did Elsevier come back to you, or how did that negotiation start up again. After we stopped negotiating. There were you know occasional check-ins from both sides just, you know that Elsevier got a new CEO during that period of time that CEO was a graduate of the University of California at Berkeley. And then they came to pass a visit and you know there were, you know, little conversations now and then but, but nothing over what's happening and then in June, they came back with a new proposal. I think I've been spent the new CEO spending a year or so, getting to know the company and the research community and all of this so so they made the first opening in this renegotiation and it took from June until about now to conclude that. So just imagine it so when they came back did it feel there was a difference in the way they were approaching you. Oh yeah, no before we ended the negotiations because we were not getting anywhere. Really not I mean just laughable accommodations, but when they came back in June it was clearly a different company. And I don't I'm not, you know, advocating for Elsevier or apologizing for Elsevier in any way, but but it was a serious offer that met, you know, a lot of the terms that we'd laid out before, and we could see that there was potential. And so the negotiating team decided that it was the right time to go back. Okay, looking at the next question so comment from one of our one of our audience that the same heartening to know that the effects of cancellation were not as profound as many people had worried. And which are still obviously in the UK trying to persuade that academics that will be okay if we have to go into that kind of situation. I want to mention about the, the kind of amount of perpetual access you had compared to what maybe the case in the UK and whether that was. Yes, yes that's a very good point okay so two things there one is that one of the ways that we calmed the faculty down at the threat of losing access was Germany. Germany had already been out of contract for Oh two years at that point. We were in conversation with the libraries there and the faculty there and learned that it, it wasn't as bad as people anticipated so we could tell our faculty. You know they said it's okay and, and they could check that with colleagues over there and here for themselves so that's another thing that the University of California will be doing for for you now is providing that backup. Not bad. Right so but it helped us to have Germany go first. And then of course we did have perpetual access to a lot of things through our previous license and it wasn't everything that we didn't have the freedom collection, you know we didn't have a lot of the things that people wanted so yes it reduced the demand on our alternative access strategies. That was very true at the beginning in 20 early 2019 but as time went by here we are two years later. So that perpetual access is not as helpful now as it was then, since most of the health sciences want the latest articles right. I mean did the graphs show show that kind of gradual change of the time that you were seeing less was being provided for from the perpetual access. I can't answer that question off the top of my head I'd have to go look at the turn away data from the last year, which I didn't bring with me but, but certainly the complaints didn't increase. In fact they've decreased. And obviously the graphs you showed us particularly that one about the interlibrary loan is quite fascinating. Yeah, never changed, right. We've not been in this the assumption is that that will be one of the things where we see significant change. Next question, just focus on the student community. How did your student community react when the Elsevier material was switched off that you have any negative impact on student experience I guess. Well the graduate students, I would classify as faculty, you know they use the journals and the same way as faculty undergraduates are not particularly big users of Elsevier titles other publishers more but. So they, we did keep them in the loop. They knew what was happening but they were not a huge stakeholder community in this. And actually some of our students I don't know if you know about the University of California but it's a very activist kind of institution. So if anything the students were very supportive because they don't like, you know, corporate monopolies. Did you, did you find did you do any communication particularly for the student group that you'd have to adjust your communications or did they just pick it up and what was going on. That's a very good point we didn't really we did some interviews with student newspapers. But the outreach wasn't really changed for that community because it wasn't going to impact them. Sometimes if there is a reading that they need to do in a class it's the instructor who goes and gets that article not the students so. Yeah that just that really wasn't a big issue to my knowledge. Thanks.  I just wondered I was hoping that you possibly had enough knowledge of how things are working in the UK and we are trying to in the UK level trying to get that combination of senior university leader with library staff and make that work. But I just wonder reflecting on what you've learned is there anything you think we can particularly learn in our situation. Of course we have multiple institutions rather than. Yeah, something particularly we should think about. Well, yeah, let me drill into that just slightly because what I was trying to point out is that our, when it comes to this kind of scholarly communication the customer is the individual researcher, or author, right. It's not the university governance, it's not the big research funding agencies. It really is a grassroots kind of thing. So, for us it was really important that all the faculty and researchers knew about what was happening and generally thought it was the right direction. And that's where our faculty Senate comes in because the faculty Senate is is their governance body and and it has weight and what I can't really explain is that normally, the faculty and the administration are directly opposed to each other on a lot of issues that that that's the more typical scenarios that the university administration wants to do something and the faculty want to fight it. This was an exception in that we were on the same page, and we made sure that the senior administration knew what was happening and supported us, but they weren't the ones who were insisting that this happened. It was the faculty. But, but we've got lucky because there's a particular way that the faculty are organized at the University of California that lets us know who we need to talk to that library committee is really important so so it. I've seen this play out and it can get to it's too complicated and too disorganized at a lot of institutions and actually in the UK, because you have such strong central governance of universities and funding and so on, it might actually be harder to get the average faculty member on board. But it was interesting you were saying I mean I heard that point about, you know the strength of those groups but even in the negotiation group there were still occasionally some different priorities about what people were. Right. Yeah, well that's, I mean that should be no surprise to anybody the faculty don't know anything about budgeting. You know that's not they don't care what the university is spending on this stuff, or we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place right I mean that's not their job to worry about that so so we had these two goals 100% open access and cost reduction. And that's all I meant is and we were not on different pages we were just trying to decide you know how much to insist on this versus that in the negotiations. Okay, so some other questions which have come in from the audience. So now that you've got your new deal in place. Is the feeling across faculty that it is entirely positive. This has been a really, what's the kind of reaction. Well it's been two days so it's hard to know exactly how to answer that but I'll just say that. And of course this is just anecdotal so don't take it too seriously but I got quite a lot of positive email from faculty when the announcement went out few we got what we wanted this is so great you know I've been holding my breath. So they clearly they did want a deal. I got maybe a handful of the well I'm still going to boycott Elsevier. I still hate them. You know, and I'm well that of course is your prerogative and I never told you not to you know. So I would say that yes of course there will still be faculty who feel very passionately about not supporting this commercial publishing model and hybrid journals and so on and that I'm glad that we still have those advocates out there. They're the reason we've gotten this far, but the vast majority faculty are quite happy I think. That's great. Thank you. So a few questions around about the communication and I guess messages so one comment here and I was really interested in your point about using external media to make an impact and that people get to because the kind of a more connected or in a way trust the Guardian article will get far more attention. So general question here about, you know what were the key messages which resonated with bits of the community and where the thing did you have to segment your audience at all to get certain messages to work better with different parts of your community. We, we didn't really I think. How do I put this. We definitely crafted each message very carefully. Which was really the same to all of them and maybe the way you express it the level of detail you include would be different if you're dealing with somebody who's intimately familiar with publishing or not. You know the way you talk to a faculty member who publishes 100 articles a year is different than the president of the university who hasn't published in 30 years right you know. So there's that kind of nuance but the message, the basic messages we are a public research institution. Our job is to get our research out to the public and the way to do that is with open access publishing so we need to make this work. Meanwhile we're paying a ridiculous amount of money for access to these journals and that has to change to you know so the message was very consistent. And the points never changed, just the way they were expressed. Again that's very encouraging to hear that. Okay. And one one another question around about I suppose Elsevier and I suppose there is a concern here and we know from previous negotiations that sometimes publishers will choose to go to try and go direct to our academic community. Oh yes. Yes. Yes, yes that happened. Yeah, early on. Yeah, no I don't think any of this is secret early on there was a lot of outreach by the company to authors and particularly through the editors who were members of our faculty to try to get them to create a kind of counter movement, and it failed. I think at that point the faculty were suspicious enough in general that they knew that they were being played somehow. Now there are exceptions I mean we I don't want to downplay this there were faculty and some very important people deans and so on of our colleges who had been editors of Elsevier journals for years and really liked working with the company or we're making a lot of money from their role with the you know so there were definitely voices on the campuses that were trying to change our strategy and influence us but they they were so few compared to the rest that it didn't really have an effect and so one thing we did do is tailor some of our outreach to the editors. And that took a lot of work because they know who the editors are for their journals but we don't necessarily so we had to do a lot of research to figure out just looking at mastheads and things like that. Who are the editors of journals that work for this university and can we reach out to them and talk to them about what's happening. So that in the bigger picture as that opened up some further conversations about the bigger open research open science type approach and the whole business of status. You know recognition thinking because when you're mentioning about the editors traditionally that will be something which would bring someone some status and I wonder whether this experience has given you an opportunity to open into those wider conversations. But the faculty have been having those conversations and as I showed in one of the slides there were several boycott efforts that were faculty sponsored from the beginning to try to you know get what we wanted out of the negotiations and I had quite a few people coming in with me regularly to say, can I, can I join this editorial board is that okay Mackenzie and I'm like, I'm not the boss of you to what you think is right. So, but they wanted to do the right thing.  So quite a few of our faculty did decline invitations to edit or peer review during this period. I don't know what their motives were for that it could have been just a good reason to say no, you know. So questions about preparations you may have made for alternative access when you're thinking about the walking away thing. Part of this. So, questions around about you know, did you set up any other ways of discovery for alternative open access. And did you do any pre I know you mentioned about into library alone but did you do any pre planning to try and on the assumption that you thought that there would be increased demand. So that that links back into the communications piece which turned out to be you know the most important and complicated part we, we did spend a lot of time developing guides for finding alternative copies of articles. Those are on every library's website, they were, we did a lot of training sessions and that. So that was important to do if just to reassure people that there are other ways to get these articles, you know, so we did a lot of that and we also as I said we we retooled our inner library loan system. So that we had this tiered model where there was kind of a default request and then there was this emergency access request. And at the beginning that was very important to have. So yeah, we put a good six months worth of work into making sure it was as good as it could be. Interesting comment I think it was kind of follows on from that. The whole business of alternative ways that you could get hold of material. We know all of us know there are a variety of ways active where you in promoting some of these alternative. We stuck very carefully to the legal, legally available sources. We include things like research gated, you know, that we considered a legit source we never, we never promoted the other places where you can get journal articles however, researchers aren't stupid. So they talked to each other and I think there was a fair use amount of use of it at least at the beginning but nothing that we promoted. Okay. Interesting question which you might not be able to answer but did you have a sense when, when you reach the point that you're going to have to walk away as to how long you thought you're going to be able to survive. Or did you have any kind of sense in your head as to how long this you could hold out in that situation or was it something which didn't come. You know that that's a really interesting question I haven't really thought about that but I think again Germany's example was very front of mind for us.  So that was kind of our mindset, I think is that if it dragged on, that was okay. And we, we didn't re approach. Elsevier because we were realizing that we could keep going. We didn't want to our faculty wanted to deal someday, but we weren't going to have to give in. And it was also very interesting to see your pulse survey after six months. So clearly there was some dissatisfaction but actually, again, I think if most people have been asked what you think kind of response you're going to get. That pulse survey was a little nuanced right because it gave people the chance to say I really support what you're trying to do, but then there was this one that's well you know this is kind of hard for me but I stand with you. And so, those are the people who wanted the deal, again, but we're willing to wait as long as it took. And they were not an insignificant number of people. So, yeah. Okay, obviously a lot of positive comments about your talks and thank you very much from the audience. One particular question about green green. Yep. Is that, can you say is that part of the deal is an element of that within the new deal. Yes, that's a really good question because it's not explicitly in the deal because this is a publishing read agreement, but there were a lot of discussions about that with them because we still have our senate, our faculty senate open access policy that requires them to deposit their articles any scholarship so that that hasn't changed and there are authors who've already told me that they're going to keep doing that. And they haven't even opt out of open access with the journal, because they just don't think it's the right model right and so we did spend a fair amount of time working with Elsevier on the terms under which authors can self deposit. We got them to move, you know, a fair way forward so they're no longer going to require waivers. Okay, and I think we're still debating which license because we want the most liberal license CC by for those, they would like something a little more restrictive. So that is still an active conversation but we haven't given up that that's going to continue. Okay, good to hear that. Thank you very much. One more specific question going back to the interlibrary loan just somebody interested, particularly in a bit more detail perhaps about what preparations you put in place to ensure that interlibrary loan could expand if it was needed to do that. Well, we actually so we staffed up in the summer of 2019 and assumed that, you know, we would be dealing with an onslaught that never happened. So we over anticipated what would need to be done then the demand barely increased at all. So I mean who knows if it would be exactly the same there but what we found, I'll be quite honest, library I alone systems are hard to use. And humanists have gotten used to it, and they can be patient. The kinds of researchers who use science directory day are not willing to wait and deal with the forums and the you know all of that stuff so I think they just found it was much easier to find that article on the web, or get it from the author or something like that. That's my opinion anyway. Thank you very much. Okay, so it's still questions coming in so try and work our way through those. We're going back to that whole point about the change of approach. You've referenced obviously that there was a change in CEO during the period. Do you think that was the main factor or the other factors at play which which led to the change in approach. I want to try to pretend I know how Elsevier manages itself, but I think the new CEO definitely did take a fresh look at the whole thing and with a different mindset. That I think also the fact that we had walked away and that we weren't showing any signs of pain told them something because to have both Germany and the University of California which are about the same size actually. That's a bad sign you know if more institutions walked away and stayed away. That would strengthen the library communities. Feeling that this this publisher doesn't matter anymore.  Yeah. I want to question here about in terms of your approach whether it was influenced by any of the discussions which are going on with funders, what their requirements might be. So whether that suppose that had been part of your thinking as you are setting up your strategy and had that influence how you were thinking about what kind of agreement you might need to have in place. Yes, well, as I said the model we have is a multi pair model so it does matter very much where researchers get their funds and what they can do with those funds, but in the US. Most of the major federal research funding agencies do allow publication fees, and many of them require open access, although it's often in a institutional repository or in PubMed central something like that. The agencies are typically very supportive of open access. And we, we had to come up with a model that could leverage that funding, which led to our multi pair model. Fantastic. Yeah, we're almost at the end of the list so. Wow. Hope you've managed to survive the grilling but just to say, I think a couple of quick ones so just after cancellation did you feel a need to re subscribe to any of the titles during the dark period. As I said, that was top of mind for a lot of people and we agreed the libraries agreed not to. Okay, and we reached out and asked the deans of all the schools and colleges not to. So we decided no, I think there were a handful of print subscriptions that continued. Maybe I can't remember if we had the clinics titles during that time. There were things that weren't part of our license that we may have continued to have but not the journals. Okay. One quick question just going back to green, do you have any embargo period on that being asked. Was it just straight to straight to open if someone deposits as far as we know there is no embargo period for those I that actually came up yesterday and and there's some conflicting information between Elsevier's website and. So anyway, as far as I know there is no embargo on self deposit. Fantastic. So I think one more question and I think it's a really appropriate one to wrap things up on so it's that kind of reflection question. What do you think is the most important thing we you've learned from this process and I guess from our perspective what's the most important thing we could take out from your experience. Wow, wow, that's, I mean I've already talked about the important things like making sure that the faculty are in the loop and generally support you and being clear about what you want to get out of the deal but I think, having been in the library profession now for many decades. There's a certain fear factor that we have that we're the weak, the weak part of the equation and that they're the strong part of the equation that proved not to be true. In this case that we were in the power position and it took us a while I think to really believe that. The negotiating team they may have known from the beginning that that was the case but I think we all went into this just fearful of what might happen and nothing bad well nothing bad. It was not an easy two years, but certainly I feel now like we could do this again, you know, if things don't go well and we need a new contract in four years we can do it again. And so we've kind of crossed a bridge now in that confidence that this that we do have power in the research library and research university community to get what we want. Thank you Mackenzie and I think that's a fantastic message for us. And I think particularly, you know, that ability for us to reference both your experience and as you've mentioned the German experience to will be of enormous benefit for us as in the UK as we try and move forward with our negotiations. So just like to say I think it's been a really fascinating session with you thank you for your time and be willing to go into so much detail and to answer so many questions. It has been, you know, I think certainly been inspirational. It's been really for me I think that key point about how you have been able to, and here, I've been able to develop that really strong relationship with your academic community, and get them to be working alongside you to allow you to achieve what you want to achieve out of this negotiation. They deserve so much credit actually Jeremy because the library community always works with each other, you know we're used to doing that, but we had faculty advocates who really worked hard on behalf of this cause, you know, and they had to deal with that huge diversity of opinion and openness among the faculty and they had to be very brave to kind of navigate that and stay the course so I give them a huge amount of credit but yeah.


Different institutions, be they business or be they government or be they not-for-profit charitable organizations respond very differently to pressures and they have different kinds of pressures placed on them. The biggest pressure of course is if you have a competitor and if a company has a major competitor that your customers can go to then you realize you better be on your toes. On the other hand if you're the IRS and it's probably not wise of me to attack the IRS but if you're the IRS and somebody has a problem with you and isn't being treated fairly there's only one IRS you can go to and they know that and as hard as their management may try and I think they do try to be responsive. The fact is that when you don't have somebody breathing down your back you're not as good probably and so whether you have competition or not I think is a big factor. Also there are just very different kinds of leadership that one finds in those three sectors. One would think that leadership is leadership but the the demands are very different. There's some fundamentals that I think carry across all kinds of leadership to act ethically to treat people all people decently and those fundamentals they translate but if you just compare for example leadership and government and leadership in the private sector. In government first of all you have a in the federal government you have a 535 member board of directors that likes to dabble in operating matters. In the corporate world you have probably a 12 person board of directors that understands the difference between governance and operations and doesn't dabble in operations. The in the government you have a turnover of the top leadership every few years and administration at least whereas in the private sector although it's becoming shorter hopefully the senior management stays around for perhaps ten years. There are just so many differences in the private sector your results are very measurable. You could look up every day in the stock pages and see how you did yesterday. I had to have a son-in-law play professional basketball and each morning we'd open the newspaper and he'd open the sports page and he could see right the box score how did he do yesterday. I could open the business page I could see our company was listed right along with all the rest of them. In government there's no place you can turn to find out how am I doing am I doing well and that is often a very long-term matter. I think there's another important difference in leading in government and leading in the private sector and that is the founding fathers as I an engineer would describe it, set our government up to be more or less horizontally integrated whereas business tends to be vertically integrated. In other words they set up checks and balances between the judicial department the judiciary and the executive branch the legislative branch and so they did this with a very good purpose in mind they didn't want anybody to have a great deal of control they didn't trust government with a lot of control in one person. Industry is sort of the opposite they put a CEO in charge and if that CEO is wise he or she will listen to the advice and to sending advice hopefully of those around them but once a decision is made everybody lines up and goes whereas in government there two parties and the party in command may make a decision but that won't cause the other party to get behind it so I think the really the challenges are very different in these different branches of endeavor.


Welcome, this is the English language translation of the Open Sensor Data Talk by Felix Erdmann, live from the 36K's Computer Congress in Leipzig. All talks at Congress are live translated between German and English and to one additional language. Visit C3lingo.org for more details and information on how to access the streams. We appreciate your feedback. Please use the hashtag C3T, your translators for these talks, RQV, VH1 and Pete Pioriti. So please a round of applause for Felix Erdmann. Hello, together. Thank you for coming and thank you for this introduction. This nearly covers my whole first slide. I will be talking about Open Sensor Data for everybody based on open source, open hardware and educational resources. It's an open sense block project by the University of Münster and we started this a few years ago with small Arduino kits and went into the citizen science project field and first I would like to tell you something about myself. My name is Felix Erdmann. In 2012 I was a student intern at the Institute for Geology Information Science and I had first contact with sensor data and Arduino and different kinds of sensors, environment data and I put this small module on a drone. That was basically my first point when I started with this field. After graduating from high school I studied this field and graduated from university and now I'm a teaching assistant at the sense block project at the university. What is sense box? Who has heard of that? Sense box is a DIY toolkit for stationary and mobile sensor stations based on open hardware, especially on the Arduino platform. We got different versions of the sense box that we developed and we distributed them to cover different fields and areas so that every citizen can become a scientist and the other field is digital education. We want to connect with institutes of education, high schools and we want to show students that coding is not as difficult as it sounds and we want to establish a certain understanding of coding. The other product is the open sense map, which is a web-based platform where everybody can register his or her sensory station and look at the data collected there. We have different tools there to visualize data. One field is citizen science and everybody can become a scientist and participate in science. There are different levels for that. The lowest level is for users to simply gather data up to the highest level which means that the user not just gathers data but also interprets data and can publish scientific findings. This is why we developed the sense box home. This here is in Sao Paulo. It's a plug and play sense station. You do not have to assemble a lot, just plug it in with a USB port and you can gather environment data with this. It can be transmitted via Wi-Fi or other means. The other equivalent for education is sense box Edo. We have a microcontroller here and different sensors. Usually it's temperature, humidity, pressure. You could also measure particles in there. It's also plug and play. But here there are a few more components, a few buttons, display, and you can connect that manually and enable different projects. And then you can program this box. We use Google's programming tool. Like a scratch you put together different pieces. And with this interface you can easily assemble your own code. It's meant for younger students who do not have any experience with coding, and more experienced students can then just enter code like we see on the red side here. All this is based, like I said before, on Open Hardware. We've developed our own module based on Arduino. It's the celled sense box MCU. And the reason I've done that is because we are using Arduino Uno, which we started on, that you couldn't use all sensors at the same time. And you can upload the code. The memory capacity wasn't high enough, so therefore we added this module and modified it. We have different ports, ITC, analog, digital and serial ports. And they have plugs, which you can only plug in one way so that you can't get a short circuit with the sensors. So it's rather easy to build your own sensor station. It has two XP ports, which you can transfer data from, be it via Wi-Fi via Lora or an SD module where they are saved. So you can do it offline and collect them with a data card. And then have a look at them at home. All the circuit layouts, the copper files and libraries, they're open. They're all available in GitHub. Anybody who has the means of building it, they can solder and assemble it themselves. As I said before, the open sense map is the backbone of the project. So everybody can register their own box, send the source code and then can upload their measure data. As you can see here, on the whole world, we are distributed, of course, in Germany. In Europe, there's the most, but they are on even crazier locations. There are boxes which send their data onto this platform and the way you can view them from. In addition, there is more analysis for the data. When you click on a station, you can see details. You can see information and you can diagrams from data. For example, somebody uploads a picture. You can see the temperature on the temperature curve of this box. As I said before, this is all open here. So the open sense map, not just sense boxes, can send their data there, but everybody can. So if you've got something else, or if you Raspberry Pi or an HP, you can send it onto this platform. We have an open API with REST, so it can accept all kinds of data. Some examples are the seed box where it can measure the water flow and distribution direction of the flood. You can measure air data rather easily and send it into this platform. Then there are sort of more unusual ones which are being built in the garden, which measure wind direction and speed. Smart citizen devices can also send it, and obviously the seed box, and even self-built stations and systems. And then we're not limiting this to a phenomenon, but you can measure the water temperature, humidity, sound, all sorts of gases. As long as you can measure it, you can upload it. So the source code is freely available on GitHub, which is the sketch, the code that's on the Arduino, the Ansbach MPU, the front end, all the API and the services, which we developed. You can download them and look at the source code. The website and the teaching materials, this is all available on GitHub, and the API is also open, so everybody can upload their data. So these are all educational resources. They are available for teachers and institutions because the hurdle to get into using the seed box can be quite large. So many people don't know how to use it, don't have the time to get used to it, and we want to lower the hurdles of entry for digital education. So I want it easier to develop projects that you can move along. So theory and practice, for example, it's here, a traffic counter with an ultrasonic distance counter, which you can use to measure distances. And in this example, it shows you theory on how to check the access and how to connect the sensor, what you can do with the data. One example that was used in school, and then the students, they could check the amount of traffic in front of the school, and then they really measured how many cars were driving past the school in about a quarter of an hour. And then we could really put facts onto the problem, so when we say there's too much traffic, but nobody really knows, in this case we can rather easily get the data and then analyze what we can change. Just a little bit on the timeline. So for my personally, the project started in 2012 when I was a pupil doing some volunteering at the university, and then the first models were used in teaching, all based on you doing uni in all sorts of combinations with devices. And I put this kid on a drone, flew it around. The real start was 2016. We got a support from the grant from the German Ministry of Education, and we get all sorts of results on the open sense map for all sorts of modules that you could interpolate data to estimate it between different data, so temperature for example, from the hardware. We did a 3D printer to build cases to ensure the sun wouldn't go into the sensors that easily. We tested under extreme conditions in Swiss mountains. There's super cold temperatures, all of the snow, and that was the project for testing. That's what finished, and then we have a no, it's called Sandblock Pro, which just gets funding also from the German Ministry of Education, also for three years. And we want to use professional users and use really high cost senders. Right now it's just low cost. Senders are good and nice, but the real professional users can't really do something with them, so we can use different sensors and check with the industry if the industry is interested in this. On the software side, on the open sense map, you can see different analysis methods, so we better compare the data. We asked ourselves at some point, it's a citizen science project, so open science, it's called open science and we want the data to be reproducible, but we asked ourselves who really participates here, because we say everyone can participate, everyone can take over different tasks, but what kind of people are there? So in Master's thesis we did a survey and tried to figure out who are the participants. It's mostly me, so who would have thought. The age is between 30 and 55, it's the highest portion. What's interesting is that a lot of participants have academic backgrounds, they have a bachelor, a master or a diploma, and from this area there's a lot of participants. We rather thought that everyone can participate, but apparently a lot of people are not interested in, maybe the hurdles are too large, but it's mostly academics that participate in this project. For some background, so the users we asked are all users that are registered on open sense map, so all the users that registered there station once and uploaded some data, and it's not people who just download the data and we couldn't get the data of these people. So what's the motivation of the participants to participate here? So you can say more or less that everyone likes to measure environment data, collect them and publish them, so they don't just want them to themselves, they want to share them and maybe even influence political decisions. In the area of communication, we want to support the community or one wants to support the community, one wants to help in order to solve certain problems, one wants to maybe even encourage other people to participate, but really to meet other people, that was a big part or a goal for these participants. A lot of the people thought that more should be done with the data, a bigger analysis, but to participate in the scientific process themselves and to write even a publication, people didn't really want to do that. You can also see this from the main usage of open sense map. Most people just want to share that data, to measure the data and just to participate to contribute, but in the end they just look at the data, create diagrams and add sensors, play with the boxes. The numbers of the data through interpolation, for example, is a very low priority and is not used a lot. We collect quite a big amount of data, so we're already in the big data area. We have about 5,700 registered boxes, five to six thousand measurements per minute, and we have about 3.9 billion saved measurements. Everyone can download all the data by themselves and work with it. It's not really a problem because you only save the raw data, not the validation of data, but the data that the users really measure. On the whole project, especially in the infrastructure, we have some problems. We have quite the hungry servers running in the cloud on AWS, but it's going to be moved to the open stack at the University of Münster. They require quite a lot of memory and hard drive space. The database is MongoDB with four collections, and there we have the problem that since it's really a huge database, the indexing and the quest of statistics takes a long time because the whole table has to be parsed in order to grasp the data and to compute statistics. Basically, one reason, because we kept the original architecture that originated from a bachelor thesis, so we started with a prototype and just grew and grew, more and more data came in, and now we have these 3.9 billion data points, and now we have to start thinking about a more efficient way to store this. With that, we only save the raw data, so we don't really modify the data, and the data is also not validated. So from this, other problems originate if you want to analyze the data. So this is a screenshot from this morning from the interpolation here in Leipzig. The temperature, the calculated temperature between different boxes. I chose only boxes that are set up outside, and we can see that everything is nice and green, but in the top right, there's a box that's orange-red, and that means it's more than 20.7 degrees Celsius, and I thought this can't be quite right. A box that's outside and measures 20 degrees Celsius, and it looked a little bit closer, and it turns out that it's constantly around 20 degrees, so you can deduce from that it's probably inside, and so we can't really do the interpolation here because this falsifies the measurement. On the other side here in Hamburg, this is another screenshot, there's a sensor broken in the middle somewhere in Hamburg, constantly measuring about minus 150 degrees Celsius, so this interpolation here also doesn't really work. That's another goal that should supposed to come in the future to detect these kind of exceptional data points and to take them out of the data set that you want to analyze. So in the future, the development is done by the REEDU Corporation and the university and at the university within the support of the BMBF project, so more materials will be added, more projects for the educational area, the hardware and software will also continue to be improved, trying to add new sensors and add a Wikipedia for all the sensors to have a uniform system, and you get a summary of what kind of sensors there are and what kind of deviations can come from this. So one of the sensors we are using, for example, is very affected by humidity, so it's just things to keep in mind when you look at your data. Our goal is that this project is mostly community-driven, so the further development of the software happens on an open-source basis, so everyone can participate if they want to. And this under the umbrella of a common company and independent support, so we started a Discord forum where everyone can register and exchange ideas with each other and answer the questions of other users. By the way, questions. So this is the end of my talk. Thank you very much for your attention. And we have a few minutes so that I can answer questions. Thank you very much. Thanks for listening to the English translation of open-sensor data for everybody at the 36K Communication Congress. Your translators were... People already? VH1 and Queen. We appreciate your feedback. Please email us at hello at C3lingo.org or use the hashtag C3T on Twitter. So now we've got a question from the audience asking if they're afraid that the sensor is flooded and the answer is yes, that could of course happen. That would be a worst case, but we are of course working to install measurements that that doesn't happen. Then we've got a question from the Internet. The question from the Internet is for one, can you recommend us what kind of sensor? I've tried this before. I've found one that has three poles to the power and one that just gives me back a resistance. And then it isn't really that hard and you've got to calculate the resistance in a wind direction but I don't have clear recommendations for this one. Another question from the Internet. Another question, the answer is can sensors do power over Ethernet? Are from the motivation of educational work and scientific work. Are there any other possibilities of interest, any other fields of interest? I could imagine for example communities that people want to know how their environment is doing if they're close to an airport. It's recognized that it's too loud over there and we need valid data for those institutions if we go public. So isn't there management necessary to to validate all the results? In the current situation everybody can just put a sensor into your own garden and collect data with it. But at the current time of course if you have a tree and you put your sensor just half way below it and then the sun is coming over then suddenly the amount of sun suddenly reduces during the day when the shadow is coming over and this is of course what you should be reducing. So if you look at the current set of PVD, of course currently this is a very nice open coast so there it is at temperature without any of these kind of error sources. So this is something that really needs to be taken into account. On the other hand however the sensors and the components that we're using are quite cheap and therefore it's quite relatively easy to just kind of make a measurement setup and to get your first data and then maybe later when you've got first results then you can go to official places for example at the airport and then you go to the local or the county government and then maybe you give them that data and then you can progress. Hello, is there a historical background why MongoDB was used in another data bank? Well there's no clear reason for this. So during my bachelor's thesis I just used MongoDB as my first database. I know this wasn't just done as now but some time ago and some of these are quite older versions of these but a nice influx database something like that would make much more sense, I agree but not just MongoDB. Yes, we have a question from the internet. All questions are cleared. A miracle with this internet. It seems all questions on the internet were solved. So now I just want to give a big thank you to Felix Erdmann for this talk.


Happy birthday, Canada! Whether you're watching the fireworks, firing up the grill, or getting outside with your kids, today we celebrate the amazing place we call home. In the last four years, Canadians have created more than a million new jobs. Unemployment is at its lowest since the 70s, and across the country 825,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty. There's never been more opportunity or more progress to share in. And that's thanks to Canadians like you. We're an example to the world because of the way we treat each other. We're neighbours helping neighbours. Small businesses lifting communities up. Men and women in uniform keeping us safe. Families opening hearts and homes to newcomers in need. Friends who might as well be family. That's the heart of our success and the story of Canada. We know we've still got work to do. Not everyone benefits equally from Canada's success. We need to change that and make sure we all move forward together. That means supporting Canada's workers, creating more opportunity and growing the middle class. And it means fighting climate change so we can leave our kids a healthy world. I know we'll step up to the challenges we're facing just like we've always done. Because no challenge is too great if we face it together. From my family to yours, Happy Canada Day.


Hello and welcome to this presentation of the Embedded Flash Memory which is included in all products of the STM32C0 microcontroller family. The STM32C0 embeds up to 32 kilobytes of single bank flash memory. The flash memory interface manages all memory access, read, programming and erasing as well as memory protection, security and option bytes. Users using this flash memory interface benefit from its high performance together with low power access. It has a small erase granularity and short programming time. It provides various security and protection mechanisms for code and data applicable for read and write access. The main flash memory is split into two kilobytes pages that can be independently erased. A mass erase feature is also supported. Flash memory access may require wait states according to the actual CPU frequency. To reduce the latency, the flash controller embeds both an 8-byte prefetch buffer and 16-byte instruction cache. It also contributes to decrease the consumption because they belong to the V-core power domain. In addition to the 32 kilobytes of the main flash memory, the STM32C0 supports a system memory of 6 kilobytes containing the ST bootloader, an OTP memory that can be used to store user data that cannot be erased, option bytes containing default settings to configure IPs in the system on chip, and they're automatically loaded after a power-up reset. The system memory is reserved and contains the bootloader used to reprogram the flash memory through one of the following interfaces, USART1 and I2C1. The first table details the memory organization based on a main flash memory area and an information block. The second table details the granularity of the flash memory operations, programming is done on 8-byte double words, fast programming is done on a row of 256 bytes, arrays is done either globally or on 2 kilobytes pages, the secureable memory is aligned on pages, write protection is done per page, read protection is global, and proprietary code readout protection is done on 512-byte areas. Fast programming enables the programming of a row of 256 bytes, while normal programming has a granularity of 8 bytes. The main purpose of fast programming is to reduce the page programming time, it's achieved by eliminating the need for verifying the flash memory locations before they're programmed, thus saving the time of high voltage ramping and falling for each double word. By default, access to the flash control register is locked. Executing the unlocking sequence is required prior to raising or programming the flash memory. Fast programming a 2 kilobyte page is 30% faster than standard mode programming. Mass arrays time, meaning a 32 kilobytes arrays operation, approximately takes the same time as a page arrays. Fast programming versus standard programming, 256 consecutive bytes are programmed instead of 8-byte double words located anywhere in the main flash memory, 8-byte programming is more reliable due to the verification step. Note that the maximum time between two consecutive double words is around 20 microseconds. If a second double word arrives after this delay, fast programming is aborted and a flag is set. Consequently, interrupts should be disabled to make sure that this delay is not exceeded. This table summarizes the differences between standard and fast programming. Each program and arrays operation can degrade the flash memory cell. After an accumulation of programmer and array cycles, memory cells can become non-functional causing memory errors. Endurance is the maximum number of erasing and programming sequences that the flash memory can support without affecting its reliability. Their retention is defined as retaining a given data pattern for a given amount of time. The retention depends on the number of program and array cycles and also on the temperature. The flash memory has a fixed access time, while the AHB bus frequency can be dynamically changed. That's why the number of wait states is programmable and has to be set according to the actual AHB frequency called HCLK. When the number of wait states is non-null, the flash memory accelerator should be activated to limit the performance impact. CPU generates 32-bit instruction fetch requests. The 80-bit instruction fetch request can be set according to the HCLK frequency. Increasing the number of wait states must be done prior to increasing the frequency. Decreasing the number of wait states must be done after having decreased the frequency. The eight-byte line containing the requested instruction is read from flash memory and stored into the current buffer, while the requested word is directly transferred to the CPU. The next line is automatically read from flash memory and stored into the prefetch buffer. So, in case of sequential code, back-to-back words will be delivered over the SAHB until a branch is encountered. When the code isn't sequential due to a branch, the instruction may not be present in the currently used instruction line or in the prefetch instruction line. In this case, the penalty in terms of number of cycles is at least equal to the number of wait states. Small loops can be entirely stored in the current and prefetch buffer no flash memory access is needed. The flash memory controller also implements an instruction cache of 16 bytes. Each time the requested instruction isn't in the current and prefetch buffers, the line is copied into the instruction cache. If an instruction contained in the instruction cache memory is requested by the CPU, it's provided without inserting any delay. Once all the instruction cache memory lines are filled, the least recently used, or LRU, policy is used to determine the line to replace in the instruction memory cache. This feature is particularly useful in case of code containing loops. Instructions at the branch target address will be present in the instruction cache. Both the prefetch buffer and instruction cache are enabled, disabled by software because their impact on performance depends on the number of wait states to access the flash memory. The instruction cache can also be reset by software. The performance continues to increase linearly with the frequency when accelerators are enabled, i.e. prefetch buffer and instruction cache. The slope of the curve related to prefetch on and cache on is almost not affected by the transitions from 0 to 1 wait states achieved at 24 MHz, from 0 to 24 MHz. Enabling the prefetch buffer and the instruction cache doesn't improve the performance. This array also shows that enabling the prefetch buffer and the instruction cache contributes to reducing consumption due to flash memory accesses. Readout protection aims to protect the contents of the flash memory, option bytes, internal SRAM, and backup registers, again reads requested by debuggers or software reads caused by programs executed after a boot from SRAM or bootloader. Only a boot from flash memory is permitted to read the contents of these memories. The proprietary code protection is a way to mark parts of the flash memory as execute only. Note that this kind of access permissions is not supported by the memory protection unit present in the Cortex M0+. The user can declare two PC-ROP areas aligned on 512-byte addresses. PC-ROP areas are useful when only a part of the flash memory has to be protected against third-party reads. Write protection prevents part of the flash memory from being erased and reprogrammed. The main purpose of the Securable Memory area is to protect a specific part of flash memory against undesired access. This allows implementing software security services to secure key storage or secure boot in charge of image authentication. Once the processor has exited the Securable Memory, this part of the flash memory is no longer accessible. The Securable Area can only be unsecured by a reset of the device. The size of the Securable Memory area is aligned on 2-kilobyte pages. In addition, the code executed from the Securable Memory can temporarily disable debug accesses. Option bytes are used to early configure the system on chip before starting the Cortex M0+. They represent 128 bytes. They're automatically loaded after a power reset or on request by setting the OBL launch bit in the FlashCR register. This capability is required to apply a new setting without resetting the device. This slide and the two next ones describe the various fields of the option bytes. Bit28 configures the NRST pin, either as a GPIO, as a reset input only, or as a reset input and output. When it's a reset input and output, Bit29 configures the output stage, either a pulse generator or a low-level driver, which drives the pin low until it's seen as low-level. This is useful when the reset line has an important capacitive load. The readout protection level enables the readout protection for the entire Flash memory, level 0 no protection, level 1 read protection, level 2 no debug. The following transitions are supported, level 0 to level 1, level 1 to level 0, which implies a partial or mass arrays, level 0 to level 2, and level 1 to level 2. PCROP ASTRT and PCROP AEND define the proprietary code readout protection address range A aligned on 512 bytes. PCROP BSTRT and PCROP BEND define the proprietary code readout protection address range B aligned on 512 bytes. PCROP RDP allows to select if the PCROP area is erased or not the PCROP protection is changed from level 1 to level 0. SecSize defines the size of the secureable memory. BootLock allows forcing the system to boot from the main Flash memory regardless the other boot options. The boot memory is selected from both option bytes and also from the boot zero pin. This table indicates in which memory the processor will boot according to the combination of parameters. Note that when nboot cell bit is set to 1 the boot zero pin is ignored. Only option bytes select the boot memory. When the boot log bit is set to 1 in option bytes only boot from Flash memory is supported. During the option bytes loading phase after loading all options the Flash memory interface checks whether the first location of the main memory is programmed. The result of this check in conjunction with the boot zero and boot one information is used to determine where the system has to boot from. It prevents the system to boot from main Flash memory area when new user code has been programmed. The Flash memory controller supports many interrupt sources listed in this slide in the next one. An interrupt can be asserted upon successful end of operation. An interrupt can also be asserted when an error occurs during a program or erase operation. Protection violations can also cause interrupts. A size error occurs when the data to be programmed is not word aligned. Programming sequential error occurs when a program operation is attempted without having previously erased the location in Flash memory. A programming alignment error occurs when a complete double word isn't provided before initiating a standard program operation or when a complete row is not written before initiating a fast programming operation. A data miss programming error occurs when data isn't written in time during a fast programming sequence. The Flash memory module can be cloggated when the processor doesn't need to access the Flash memory and also in low power modes. The Flash memory module can also be power gated in stop mode. The Flash memory module supports the following low power capabilities clock gating, flash memory power down mode, power gating of the entire module, flash memory and controller. In run and sleep modes, only clock gating is supported. In stop, the clocks are gated and flash memory can enter power down mode. In standby and shutdown mode, the power of the flash memory module is gated for both the flash memory and controller. The STM32 C0's flash memory interface supports the same features of the flash present in STM32 G0 except that the ECC protection isn't implemented. The cache and prefetch buffer decrease latency and consumption. The one-time programming or OTP area is used to store non-erasable data. Fast programming programs a row of 256 bytes instead of discrete 8-byte double words. PC Rob stands for proprietary code readout protection which protects the code by only allowing the execution from flash memory but not reading or writing. Securable memory cannot be called from non-secure areas. It's typically used to perform a secure boot with image authentication. The flash memory module has relationships with the following other modules. Memories protections, system configuration controller or syscfg reset and clock controller or RCC, power controller or PWR, interrupts or NVIC security memory protections. For more details please refer to application node AN2606 about the STM32 microcontroller system memory boot mode. Thank you for attending this presentation.


The pandemic has accelerated the base of digital transformation in almost all organizations around the world. What kind of digital acumen should boards have to enable them to make more effective decisions? So the way to the future is digital, right? That if you don't adapt very quickly to all the needs that are being created due to whether it's the pandemic, younger generation, cultural shifts in the way that we deal with things, you're not going to do well. So you have to have a digital twin, as they say, your bricks and mortar, your business model. But you have to create your digital twin, otherwise somebody else will create it and they will get the business within five years. So you have to cannibalize your own work and make sure that you actually get the full pie versus the person being distributed to somebody else. And digitalization is not just putting something on a website, which some people think. It is really making sure that your full business model as much as possible is able to be done online. One organization that I worked with recently that deals with education had tried to do digitalization. And so they did the Zoom and they created their own database. And then I came and I said, well, but the lesson plan needs to change. We need to actually gamify. We have to make it into games. We have to use video to ensure that the child actually interacts. And so the way that you're presenting the information has to change and you can't just change. It needs planning. This is a two year down the line. And they're like, two years down the line, there's not going to be any COVID, so we don't need it. COVID just accelerated a trend that was already there. If you want to survive, you have to fully digitalize and understand where the people that you are reaching are. And imagine where they will be and provide that service beforehand. Because if you don't, somewhere else out there in the world will do it and they will be able to reach them in your homeland, in their homes and capture that. This is going to happen in almost every industry. If you don't understand how to capture your customers digitally, you will lose them. To have the digital acumen is important in the board, but it's also very important in the CEO. And it's also very important in the professional executive level. So it's no longer just the board, but has to filter all the way through almost in every decision that is being made. COVID, as I said before, just accelerated this, but this is the way of the future.


thousands and thousands of farmers listen to the radio program. We want these farmers to plant the trees in order to regain the fertility of the land. Because this area of ours, we depend on the agriculture of Brogius. About 90% of the population depend on agriculture for their livelihoods. This project we are implementing is in the mountainous area of Elkhon, that is the eastern part of the country. And the project is basically focusing on enhancing the resilience of both the ecosystem but also the communities that depend on this ecosystem for their livelihoods. The demo site in Sanzara was established in order to train the communities on how to grow a variety of crops. There are interventions that help to control soil erosion, this irrigation, marching and tree planting. So they learn as they work and implement these interventions on their farm. In order to support community-based adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, IUCN developed an innovation which merges science with traditional knowledge and ensures that this information reaches a wide range of beneficiaries. We partnered with Farm Radio International and came up with a 24-week radio campaign. Through the farm radio approach, a participatory radio campaign was developed to promote capacity building and outreach on forest landscape restoration. This is really a pilot project for us. Can we reach to those farmers through these programs in a way that can help influence behavior change? We think the answer is yes. We have also introduced a border border radio for other farmers who may not afford to buy a radio and also others don't pick our signal very well. The border border rider goes to these communities. They have a particular day for converging and following the program on the radio. So in the end, they also give their views or opinion which is recorded and taken back to the radio studios for the others to also hear their views. Knowledge is power. The Farm Radio project has actually helped us to address the communication gap with really scaling up and ensuring that the lessons from our projects benefit people beyond just where we are working. We have been able to provide a platform for people to share their lessons, to share their challenges, to have their questions answered by experts. Through those discussions and through the lessons, they've been empowered. This was complemented by the Tree Finder mobile application which helps planners to guide farmers to plant the right tree species in the right places. We had the idea to develop a mobile phone application, a tool that can be used for planning agroforestry projects, restoration projects and forestry projects. Immediately by clicking on the map you'll get a list of all the suitable three species according to the original vegetation. An extension agent can get a list of products and services that the species can provide and that can then start discussion of which species the community is interested in planting and taking care of. And if we are successful in demonstrating the benefits of radio program to farmers, we would like to scale this up in other countries like Brazil, Ethiopia, Rwanda who have all made commitments to Bonchal. We see the enthusiasm of the people, the interest increasing day by day. People working together. This community now has been able to raise over 300,000 tree seedlings. We have had over 600,000 indigenous trees planted. I see a bright future. In the next 5-10 years, people come and see how ecosystem best adaptation approaches work, how forestry restoration interventions work because we shall have all this knowledge put together, all these experiences, all these expertise.