All right, I think we'll get started. I don't understand too long between you and lunch, so thanks for coming. My name is Thierry Carras, for those who don't know me yet. I'm the general manager for the Open Infrastructure Foundation, which is the new name for the OpenStack Foundation, which you might have heard of before. I'm also the vice chair for the Open Source Initiative, so multiple foundations, and also a fellow at the Python Software Foundation as well. And today I wanted to talk to you about the role of Open Source foundations in helping produce today's Open Source software, what's the exact role of Open Source foundations in 2022 to help the production of Open Source software. And I wanted, since it's a relatively small group, just start with a traditional show of hands. Is anyone here working for an Open Source foundation? And is anyone working with an Open Source foundation? Good, so there will be plenty of time at the end for more open discussion if you all want to add to what I present, and I'm welcoming the diversity of viewpoints here. So there's been a lot of those foundations created over the last 25 years. Some of them are independent foundations. Some other are sub foundations within a larger organization. And there is a reason why those were created over the course of the last 25 years. They serve a number of basic functions. One of those basic functions is guidance, especially in the early days where Open Source was young. There was a lot of education that needed to be done to explain how this whole Open Source concept is working, especially towards companies that weren't very familiar with the concept. So one of the key functions of an Open Source foundation is to give that guidance and that education about free and open source software guidance on the type of licenses that you should be using. And that's still today a major function for Open Source foundations. The second big basic function of an Open Source foundation is to provide an asset log. It's a neutral place where to place assets for the project like trademarks or governance so that no specific organization is holding the keys to the kingdom. I remember when OpenStock was started in 2010, it was famously created by the reunion of a project at NASA and a project at Rockspace. But in reality, the trademarks, the governance, was fully owned by Rockspace. And that's really served as an impediment to getting more participation into the project. None of the big players, none of the major organizations would join and participate in the project while it was under the sole control of Rockspace. And that's why we created the OpenStock foundation in 2012 so that we got participation from IBM, Red Hat, HP, all of those companies that would never have joined if there wasn't this neutral ground for collaboration. The third basic function of an Open Source foundation is to give fiscal hosting, basically a legal standing for an Open Source project to receive and process money. And that's a key function once you start wanting to spend on continuous integration of resources or any kind of staff, you have to be able to receive and spend money. And finally, the last basic function of an Open Source foundation is to provide project infrastructure. Giving, running an Open Source project, you had to run hosting servers for the code repositories. You had to host servers for processing chain requests, mailing lists, hosting, continuous integration, all of those things that are unnecessary for an Open Source project to function, you would go to an Open Source foundation because they would have a package to let you host your project there. And so in summary, the basic function of an Open Source foundation is really to enable open collaboration, to just make it possible. And so can we really establish a topology of the myriad of foundations that exist? And what is the landscape looking like? How do you compare them? How do you look at them? One way to look at them is to look at the type of scope that they have. So for example, you have Open Source foundations around the programming language, as it became pretty clear that programming in a language that is owned by a specific company might not be the most technologically choice in the world. So there are a number of foundations, Open Source foundations around a specific language, like the Python Software Foundation, or the Rust Foundation, all of those are centered around a programming language, which give them a very nice scope and mission. Another popular way of scoping an Open Source project is around a defined project, like the GNOME foundation, for example. It's also how the Apache Foundation started, or the Linux Foundation started, or the OpenStack Foundation started, obviously. And then the scope is really to sustain the development of a specific project and make sure that it's successful. Then you have domain-centric foundations, like the Open Source Geospatial Foundation, which you might not have heard of yet. It's around serving a very specific population of users. And actually, the Open Infrastructure Foundation is a domain-centric foundation. We're trying to serve the people that provide infrastructure, so you are targeting a specific group of people and try to make sure that they have Open Source tools to fulfill their missions. And finally, there is the generalist foundations, like software in the public interest, or the Linux Foundation of today, or the Apache Foundation of today, where there is no very specific scope. They could tackle a variety of Open Source projects. It doesn't have a domain. It doesn't have a specific project around which to collaborate. Another very popular way of looking at Open Source foundations is to look at the fiscal regime they have, especially the US distinction between 501C3s and 501C6. So I don't know how many people in the room are familiar with the difference. Probably a lot of you. I'll just summarize it. Basically, the 501C3 is in service of the public interest and is funded through sponsorships, whereas the 501C6 is in service of its members. It's more like a trade association. And it's funded by membership dues. So on the surface, it sounds pretty simple, right? The 501C3 are the good guys in service of the general public, whereas the 501C6 are the evil corporation groups that tried to undermine Open Source. But obviously, things are not that simple, especially today, since the IRS has stopped giving Open Source foundations for the last 15 years now, 501C3 status. They do not recognize anymore the production of Open Source software to be in the general public interest. So for example, the Python Software Foundation was created in 2001 and is a 501C3, whereas the Rust Foundation, which is extremely similar in its mission and goals, is a 501C6. So it's really, and they have a lot in common, right? So this evil, good distinction might be too simplistic, especially in both cases, those are nonprofits. And they are both raising funds toward a mission. And the mission is studied in their bylaws. The way they do that is slightly different. In C6, you would have organizations that pay membership dues because they align with your mission. But they have a more direct control on the way the organization is spending the money. Usually, they have representation on the board and can fire the executive director, approve budget, et cetera. Whereas on a C3, organizations pay sponsorship fees because they align with your mission. So in theory, they don't have that direct control of how the money is spent. But in reality, obviously, they have indirect control because if you displease your sponsors too much or if the mission that your activities are not in line with their interpretation of your mission, obviously, they will stop paying sponsorship money and then you will be in a difficult position. So clearly, there is direct and indirect control over how the nonprofit will spend its money. And you can totally have a C3 that serves its sponsors. I mean, I won't name names, but it exists. Like it can be indistinguishable from a C6 that serves its mission. Like you can also have a C6 that is primarily focused towards its mission and not necessarily towards maximizing membership money. So details matter. You have to look slightly beyond that simplistic distinction into you have to read the bylaws. You have to look at the mission. You have to look at how the foundation is governed. Like who has representation on the board of directors, for example? Is it only corporations that give money? Is there a fair representation for individual users that may or may not have to pay? It's like, for example, at the Open Infra Foundation, we have one third of our directors that is actually elected from individual members and the individual membership is free. So basically, any member of the community can get representation on the board. And it's a C6. So it doesn't necessarily, the distinction is interesting there. You have to look at the track record. Basically, look at the mission, look at the activities, look at the annual report from those foundations, and look at whether they seem to serve their mission or they seem to serve more of their membership. And finally, they're all different. So it's really difficult to build a clear topology or say, well, those are good, those are bad. Which one should I choose? I've been personally using a framework to try to look at those various foundations. And it's about considering the why, the who, the what, and the how. So the why is the dimension where why is this foundation existing? Like what's its mission? And how strongly does it adhere to its mission? For example, the Free Software Foundation is a good example of a foundation that is extremely strong on the why. They will reject sponsorship money if it doesn't fit their view of the world. So it's extremely strong on the why. If you look at the what, it's like what's the scope of the foundation? Is it tailored towards a specific project, programming language, domain, or be more of a generalist foundation? How strongly does it define its scope? And for example, the Python Software Foundation is clearly a foundation that is very strong on the what. The who is, whether the foundation is centered around this very specific community, established community. Is it more community-centric or product-centric? And so what is the primary definition is the primary definition of the foundation? Is it more around a group of people and trying to bring solutions to them or more around a piece of technology and trying to make it widely adopted? And finally, the how? The how is how strongly the foundation has like prescriptive principles? How are they mandating the usage of free and open-source software tools? Are they mandating use of a neutral governance body for technical governance of the projects? Or is it like more open? How prescriptive are them in how open-source projects should be operated if they are hosted under your foundation? And the Apache Foundation clearly has like the Apache way that describes how projects under the Apache Foundation should be run. So it's a pretty generalist foundation. You can have a variety of projects below it, but if you host at the Apache Foundation, you have to follow the rules on how those projects should be governed. And what type of tools they should be using. So as a quick example for the Apache Infra Foundation, in terms of the why, the mission is to make key technology accessible to everyone. Like when we started this foundation, basically the infrastructure was only proprietary software and proprietary companies. And so we're on a mission to make sure that there is open-source solutions for providing infrastructure, those role-based infrastructures so that everywhere around the world you can build and potentially develop interesting applications on top of it. In terms of the what, it's clearly centered around infrastructure software for the same reason. It's not about like developer tools or anything. It's really giving every country around the world or every specific use case an open-source solution for providing infrastructure. And the reason for that is the who, because we actually attracted around OpenStack a bunch of people that are interested in using open-source software for providing infrastructure. And so that's where our audience is. That's where our family is. So obviously that's why we extended beyond OpenStack to continue providing open-source solutions to that same group. And finally in terms of the what, we have a set of principles, so open-source, open-design, open-development and open-community that we found our key to enabling successful open collaborations. And so we are trying to encourage every project under us to follow the same set of principles not just because we think they need to, but more because we think it's the way for them to be successful. And so you can look at foundations through that lens and see how strong they are in those various dimensions. For example, you can just look at the what and the how and try to graph foundations based on are they more permissive on the how, very flexible, or are they a bit more prescriptive on how open-source projects should be operated? Or in terms of the what, are they very specific, covering a very specific corner so your project might not fit? Or they are like very open, very generalist on the type of project that you can bring to them. And so for example, the Apache Foundation is a very prescriptive foundation but also a very generalist foundation. The Linux Foundation is much more permissive, they are extremely flexible in how you, the type of project that they will take and also very generalist. That's why they're actually very successful is because they can actually accept basically any open-source project. The Open Infra Foundation is a mix where we are a bit specific on the scope because it has to be infrastructure software. We also are a bit less prescriptive than the Apache Foundation but quite up there in terms of how we, the type of project that we would, we would, for example, we are not interested in hosting like open core project or a single company because we think we do not provide value if like there is not a large collaboration across a lot of organizations. There's just no point in establishing a neutral ground for collaboration if it's only one company playing in it. And the Eclipse Foundation is quite in the middle. They started at the very specific foundation slowly moving towards a lot more generalist foundation and they have like a set of principles they also apply for governance of their projects and I'm happy to be corrected there if people think this graph is not representing their foundations correctly. So back to the main topic, who needs foundations in 2022 because now that Open Source is one we've seen services like GitHub or GitLab that provide a lot of the functions, the basic functions that I mentioned earlier. Like for example, providing those infrastructures that's basic project infrastructure service.  And now it's basically really available on the shelf at through GitHub or GitLab or all of the other software forges. And in terms of guidance, those services also provide a lot more guidance. Well, there's a lot more education or open source and it's much less mysterious for the companies that are involved in Open Source. So there is less of a need for guidance but we're also seeing more and more of that guidance being given on the sites themselves. Like GitHub has a licensing choice website that helps you pick the right Open Source license for your project. So you don't need to go to an Open Source foundation for that expertise on how to set up an Open Source project anymore. That leaves more complex things like the asset log for trademarks but we're seeing more and more hosting as a service. Fiscal hosting, yeah. Open Collective is one service that also provides fiscal hosting, GitHub sponsors. There are other ways for projects to accept money. They don't necessarily need to go to a foundation to have legal standing to receive money anymore. It's not perfect yet. It's clearly progressing in that direction. And finally, that leaves trademark but you also have very simple foundations like the Open Usage Commons that provides a trademark asset log. Just that for a project. So the only thing you need is a box where to put your trademark so that nobody says it's a given company that owns it. There are solutions out there for that as well. So basically most of the basic functions are covered by other services today and I don't expect that trend to reverse anytime soon. I expect actually GitHub to do more and more to enable Open Source projects to be created directly without the need for an Open Source foundation. So why should an Open Source project use a foundation today in the age of GitHub? And truly, we've seen a lot of projects that are not going through foundations, prefer to avoid it. So in order to be relevant, Open Source foundations need to evolve. They need to go beyond those basic functions that are more and more covered by other services. They need to go from beyond barely making open collaboration possible to delivering advanced services to make open collaboration successful. Like the key role of an Open Source foundation 20 years ago was really just to make that Open Source projects possible. Now you don't need a foundation today. But you might need a foundation, and that's optional, you might need a foundation to reach a certain level of success or to get help in getting to a successful project. So let's cover what are the advanced functions of modern Open Source foundations. So first there is this function around pooling resources, going beyond merely fiscal hosting and providing a framework for enabling a lot of different organizations to pool their resources together and have means to establish a budget and spend the whole thing. That's what directed funds are all about and Linux Foundation has perfected that model really well. Another advanced function of an Open Source foundation which might not be obvious at first is to cultivate audiences. After a while you basically attract a number of people towards your various properties. Could be social media accounts, could be events, could be online publications, could be podcasts. You basically created an asset which is the audience that you can reach out to and you basically going through that foundation gives you access to those assets. For example, the CNCF has a network of events around KubeCon, Kube Days, all of those things that are relevant for any project in the cloud native space. So it's extremely attractive for those projects to be exposed to that audience that KubeCon's created. And the third advanced function of an Open Source foundation is to balance and develop what we call the three forces. We think that for an Open Source project to be successful, it needs to cultivate and balance those three components. Developers, obviously, they write the code so you have to make sure that you deliver services so that they can do their job correctly. Users, because obviously the software is not consumed or is not well known or is not well explained or not well documented, that's not very useful to write it. And finally, you also need to cultivate an ecosystem around it because otherwise you are lacking the funding to get those developers that are building the project hired and paid for. So you basically need to have services. Well, you need to balance and develop those three forces for your Open Source project to be successful and that means a foundation needs to have advanced services that cultivate and develop those three forces. So the first category is developer support services. So that's where you can rely on expertise for community management, for onboarding, for mentoring, for project infrastructure support because sometimes those project infrastructure services like GitHub are not enough or need to be configured or need to use other resources or in that case you need people to still work on project infrastructure support. Can be organizing specific events around developers meetings so that they get to work together more closely, build trust. At the Open Infra Foundation we have a specific event called the Project Teams Gathering where it's only project teams that are working together to get to common understanding and share trust and get work done in a very productive setting that's not like a wide conference. Release management is another and I learned from the Rust Foundation yesterday or was it Tuesday around like grant money, like specific features that you can get grants for so that they get added to the project. That's why this list is clearly not extensive. If you look at the user support services, well you can run big events with keynote and breakout sessions that contain a lot of information for users, education for users and how to use the software, what it does, et cetera. You can have user-centric, you can support, have people share user-centric special interest groups so that encourage users to share their experience which is not natural necessarily for them so having someone that works actively to make sure that they come out and share their experience for others. For example, we have what we call the large scale SIG on OpenStack and it's one that I share personally that is about making sure that the people that have very large deployments of OpenStack share how they got there for others to benefit from. What else? Local events support and industry event participation. That's making sure that we support local groups that wanna like meetups or OpenStack days. Those things are very important so that people can find a place near where not everyone has the opportunity to travel to Dublin so making sure you support all of those groups, international groups that are building those local events but also just participate like I'm doing today to other industry events so that you spread the world out. And also make sure that every event, every everything you organize has a good feedback loop between operators and developers of the software. And finally, ecosystem support services. Those are more so that you can have successful companies built around the successful businesses built around the software. So that includes brand building, trademark protection, trademark management, certification programs who gets to use the world, the protected world, produce market insights like running a user survey to make sure that you give your ecosystem of companies a good data on how the software is used. That's also the bottom space of this event like the booth space so that they can market their wares. And also you can also have a website that lists all the companies that are involved in that ecosystem so that if you're looking for services you can actually find it here. So in conclusion, beyond the asset lock and enabling a basic open collaboration ground the value add of modern foundations is to allow to transparently pull resources providing a range of services and a set of established assets to make open collaboration around a project not just possible but successful. All foundations are different. I encourage you to compare them. Don't just look at the fiscal code article, look at the mission, look at the governance, look at the track record, look at the how, look at the who, look at the why, look at what. Look at the expertise, look at the established assets. And finally, I think foundations are still needed in 2022 but not every project needs a foundation to reach its full potential. It really depends on the level of impact you actually need to have with your project. If it's just a small library and like five maintainers you don't really need a foundation to make it successful. And let's be honest, those services, those advanced services that I just mentioned are costly. So not every project will be able to afford it. Not every project will gather sufficient ecosystem interest that money will be spent on a foundation that will help all of those advanced services to make the project successful. So I really expect that there will be more and more of a split between projects that don't need foundations and will just use the services that are packaged in software forges and all of those services and those who will use foundation because the impact or the potential is bigger. And that's how I think it's able to go but I'm open to discussion now. So thank you for joining and thanks. So questions, remarks, comments. I think we'll need the mic maybe. So the question is, are there differences in approaches between US and the EU in foundations? I don't think so. Like most of those are very international organizations but there is this perception, especially in today's world where people are much more like looking into where the money is going. And so I don't think there are a lot of differences between the way EU based foundation and a US based foundation would function but for a number of reasons, digital sovereignty and other trade wars. It's easier if a foundation has like local representation. For example, in the EU, if you wanna get grant money it has to be a EU based organization. There's just nowhere around it. They will not pay directly an open source foundation in the US or in China or wherever to with EU grant money. So I would say the difference is more like in how to be very close to the group of organizations that want to put their resources together and if there is a geopolitical component into it then they will prefer European subsidiary or others. It's interesting to see that the 501C3, 501C6 type distinction is not necessarily relevant in Europe, so a very popular form for European based foundations is the Belgian AISPL. And it's actually a trade association. They don't really have a model for international associations in the public good. It's actually like the same type of organizations can serve both types of they're much more flexible than the US organizations. So I would say some of the distinction is not necessarily pertinent but in terms of operation type of services I think it's very comparable. Sometimes with the more generalist foundations the scope or mission tends to can potentially overlap and align with other foundations. Do you have any insights about lining up and collaborating with across foundations? It's a good point. Like for example we work closely with the CNCF because basically infrastructure is provided up to a certain layer and that layer today is basically Kubernetes and so we're working closely because the same group of people that would deploy OpenStack would also deploy Kubernetes on top of it. And so clearly there is like overlap between the type of audience that the CNCF is built around Kubernetes and the audience that we're targeting. They are much more about like cloud native development on top of Kubernetes.  And so there is on this Kubernetes infrastructure provider group there is clear overlap and we're actually collaborating across we're encouraging the collaboration between the technical groups that working on OpenStack and working on Kubernetes. There are like regular sessions between the Kubernetes steering committee and the OpenStack technical committee to make sure that the technical collaboration is working but also to share the experience that we have on a lifecycle of a very large project like past the hype, how does it go? They're basically encountering the same type of issues that OpenStack has went through so we want the next people to go to learn from history and not necessarily repeat the same patterns. So that's why we're trying to share as much as we can. We work very closely with the Ansible community as well. Like every time there is adjacent communities we're trying to make sure that at the lowest level the developers, the technical groups working on the open source software are communicating, participating, joining the other conferences making sure that that overlap is not a problem but it's true that there is some competition between the foundations that are targeting the same scope, obviously. That's why it's important to have a framework to see what the differences are and to be clear, I'm not when I did this quadrant thing I'm not saying that the top right is better than the bottom left. It's all different, it depends on what you're looking for. It's just that saying that they're all the same and you should just pick the biggest is might not be the main answer. It's just like you need to look at them because depending on what you want those strengths are different. Any other comment, anything that was wrong that I should fix? It's a very new presentation. And I realized the irony of presenting it here. Yep, go ahead. I work for OpenSource Collective which puts me in a weird state because I'm like okay, we should offer all of these things because we already do fiscal hosting which is one of the main stuff that you do. What strikes me is that it seems like more and more it's just specializing in events and branding and marketing and holding that space. Trademarks are things that you can offload to a service. I'm wondering what you think the future is 10 years from now for where we're going with foundations especially as we're seeing a proliferation of foundations. How do you think it's gonna change? I know it's a weird question, I'm just really curious. So I've been looking lately at the future of OpenCollaboration because there are a number of, here it's a bit of an echo chamber, it's all about OpenSource but if you look slightly beyond there is technological shifts that are affecting potentially the way we can use OpenSource tomorrow like AI generated code that is generated by machines so at least in the US cannot be copyrighted so OpenSource licenses cannot be used on it. We'll see more and more of complete pieces of software being generated by AI in the future and how does that affect like how we will openly collaborate in the future? My position, personal position is that OpenSource foundations should be about OpenCollaboration more than they should be about OpenSource. A value add is really enabling this neutral ground for various organizations to cooperate and not reinventing the wheel, everyone reinventing the wheel in their corner. The tool of choice to do that today is OpenSource. Is it going to be OpenSource tomorrow? I'm not sure and so be a bit forward looking and making sure that those foundations also serve those future ways of doing OpenCollaboration that might not include OpenSource licenses or might use some other form of systems. So 10 years from now, I think we'll see a difference between foundations that really took that turn early and realize that centering on OpenCollaboration will give them an edge on the next wave of how we do this because OpenSource is not perfect. Like there is clearly a sustainability issue. There is systemic and that is really difficult to fix. So we might come up with new ways of openly collaborating that are more fair and more sustainable for the production of the software. And so I expect some foundation will be very OpenSource centric, will stay around OpenSource and become less relevant over time and some others will focus more on OpenCollaboration and be slightly ahead when those other forms of collaboration will come. We don't know. Could you say a few words on the life cycle of foundations? Can because we've gone through it. So if you do a foundation around a project, clearly at one point, the project doesn't need the level of support that it needs to reach mainstream. So for example, for OpenStack, clearly at one point, it's like 10,000 people at the conference and it's like everyone wants to be a part of it, et cetera. And then there's this phase where the project finds its users, finds its niche, and the more it actually has a defined scope the better because if you have these major platforms that go in every direction, at some point it just crumbles under its own weight. So doing an OpenSource foundation around a project is, I mean, there is a reason why the Apache Foundation, the Linux Foundation, the OpenStack Foundation found a scope that is beyond their original project, purely their original project. It's because the only way to continue the existence of the organization and employing the staff you have is through diversification in the projects you take so that new projects can take over past projects. So I would say there are two approaches. You can just be fine with it and let's just let the foundation become less relevant over time and finally it doesn't have any staff or gets absorbed in some other larger foundation. Or you can try to find your position in that landscape and if you think the mission is still relevant, then continue. For me, I think the mission we have is still relevant. I don't really want a future where everyone is using Kyle's services for providing infrastructure over all over the world. So I want people to have options. I'm perfectly fine that they are successful, but I want all of the world workloads to run on Amazon and Microsoft and Google. I want a world where it's still possible to experiment and do things in the corner for various use cases, for weird compliance reasons, whatever. So that's why I think the mission is still relevant, even if the software is basically done now and still massively used, but it doesn't require as much development of the three forces as I described. So it depends on where you are and where you want to go. Terry, so that's quite interesting when you were saying there about maybe there'll be evolution of the foundations and integration of the foundations. So what I find interesting at the moment is we go back to the OpenStack days and that was primarily for OpenStack and then you moved into Open Infra. And you look at the Linux Foundation and the CNCF has gone under the Linux Foundation. Whereas in a way, I wonder, does the CNCF is that giving us a broader foundation around cloud computing itself in the sense that I suppose it's concentrating more around cloud-native computing and all the different projects that come in under that, so it's not under a specific project as opposed to how the Linux Foundation and the OpenStack Foundation started. So maybe is that how we look at it or is that just too simplistic an idea that we can have a more generic foundation that covers the different projects? I think it's simpler to have a foundation when you connect it with an audience. And so the problem with generalist foundations is that you either start from scratch or you have an audience of corporations that can fund. But you don't necessarily have the audience of people that are interested in the software. And so what the OpenStack Foundation built or what the CNCF built is an audience that is relevant to a number of projects, and that's valuable. Whereas what the Foundation brings is just like a full address book of all the companies that might join your project fund if you start it, it's sure it's a very important financial component in the success of the project. But at the same time, you still have to build that value from the ground up. You still have to attract enough people that are committed to the project or interested in using that category of projects. So in my view, the most successful will be the ones that have a better sense of their audience and capitalise around it. That's why the who is actually more important than it looks in that list. It's like, did you build an audience? And when we're talking about life cycle, when we are looking at the future of the OpenStack Foundation, really it's like, take a step back and take stock of what you built. And what we built in the end, what will remain, is more like this family of people that are used to sharing their production use cases, are happy operators able to, interested in sharing how they operate things and providing infrastructure, and interested in using open source solutions to do that. They could use proprietary solutions, they are choosing to use open source solutions probably for a reason. And so that group is realising that OpenStack doesn't matter as much as serving that population, making sure that we find or we enable open source project that are relevant to the same group. So to me, it's much more valuable to do it around an audience. And like I said, the CNCF has done very well around clean native applications and all the tool kits you need to run those. I think we're successful at targeting that very specific group of infrastructure providers using open source solutions. But you will see that in other areas, like the Eclipse Foundation has also some success around AIoT and the people that are more serving in this real use cases, it's just that sometimes it's by accident. It's like those foundations do not necessarily realise how important it is to identify that audience. And it took us a while, like it took me eight years to realise that was the asset we had, was that the group that we assembled, because you're focused on software and you just produce the software, and I mean, I'm an open source developer, I just, I thought that, you know, writing good software is enough, but if you don't have the audience, or if you don't connect, then just worthless. I think we've passed the time. Okay, well, thanks again.


How many of you have never logged into a Moodle site, logged in or used to some extent, spent 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 1, okay, so I think we can be pretty fast, okay, I will just go through this, thanks for this, I did not know that you had, because of the too much of hand raising for the first incorrect question and too little hand raising, I will just quickly show you what it is, see this is the Moodle site which will be used for all at least in the near future all NMEI CT courses, so note that thing down, because this is something you have to note it, because once you get into Moodle everything will be known. Now a typical, I have just created a pseudo login, so once you login, for example initially you saw list of courses, but this particular student, the so called student one is registered only for one course, but those of you who have registered for say research methodology or something else, you will find a list of courses here including the today IST workshop on Akash for education, those who have done say thermodynamics or something earlier, you would remember that there was a coordinators Moodle and there was a actual participants Moodle for the two workshop, this time it is not so as announced by Professor Futter, the same Moodle site, because the next actual workshop is only a week away, so you will see more than one, many of you will see more than one, do not worry, click on this and then you go into the sub site. In the sub site you will find workshop schedule, then these are all documents, workshop schedule shows you the workshop schedule, you can even download these files, the download button is here or print it and do anything with any document which you see on the web. Then this is a document on introduction to Moodle, I do not think except for some initial configuration, I think all of you should be familiar with this. The installing APK from paint drive on the Akash tablet, that instruction is also here, configuring server for clicker and conducting quizzes also here, clicker software, everything everything is here. One thing is feedback and quiz, so you will have a quiz here, sample assignment, yeah not a quiz, but there is a sample assignment here, the assignments will be submitted by clicking on this sample assignment. And the assignment is just uploading a file and from today till 12th November any person can upload a file, because of the bandwidth congestion and the server capacity, the size of an uploading file is restricted to one megabyte. And each participant can upload one file, I think there is a facility, if after uploading you can, you may decide that look I uploaded a wrong file or you have a better version of that file, before the deadline you can upload another file which will overwrite the initial file, from one participant there will be only one file. And important thing in our, is the discussion forum, here you can, this is just like a, you know a news group or a discussion forum and you would have noticed that the whole thing of moodle is something a formal and educational academic version of something like Facebook. So, you should reasonably be familiar with this. So, you can create a new topic and if you want you can click on this, see what is the question asked and what are the answers given. Now, I think I am boring you on this moodle, the main interest seems to be how to install moodle. So, I will now give over the stage to Abhilash and I will also request him that. Sir, we had one login for really a course of what we conducted. Use the same login. Maybe you are registered as a new user in the website, the email id is different, otherwise you will get the same id, it is automatic. Because as far as I know, a moodle identity is linked to your email address. If you change the email address, the system here identifies as, some Naya Bhakara I have. Otherwise it will say, oh, I know him, his email id is this, his login is this, his password is this. As far as possible, one id should be used for all NME, ICT related or Eklavya related work. It will be less confusing for you, it will be less confusing for us. That discussion forum you mean. The feedback is just fine. I will see, I am now going to my introduction to research methodologies. There is click here to fill out the workshop feedback form. This is what you are talking about. Answer the question and then you have named the remote center where you have attended the workshop. So, select one. Then please rank the first three sessions that you considered important. So, these are various choices. You can select one of them for each choice. Then there will be some questions. Unless I fill up these, I will strongly disagree for the time being to everything because that is the first choice. Do not do this, this is only an illustration.  See in this thing, most of these things are drop down menus. So, select something and go ahead. During this workshop, it is not possible to submit feedback form because we are considering you are a set teacher.  Now, technical workshop feedback form is only for technical people, those who are attended technical workshop. They can only fill. Maybe I had received the link but I could not submit the feedback. That is fine. Okay, we will cross in. Thank you. Now, will you tell them how to install Moodle? And I also request that in the next week, 10 days after the workshop, create a document on how to install, create a Moodle installation. See, before I pass on to him, I have tried installing Moodle on my own personal machine. Unfortunately, or fortunately for me, I am a Linux user, purely Linux user. Okay, I get confused when I see a Windows front-end. On Linux, Moodle is one of those directly installable things. Just you go, if you have an Android phone, you go to the Google Play Store, click on something and say, install it on my machine. Similarly, say, in Ubuntu Linux, you can go to the, which one? App get or Synaptic Package Manager, Moodle is one of them. But for a complete installation of Moodle, I understand you need the Moodle installation. Then since the, all the data is in a database, you need the MySQL. Are there options to MySQL? But typically MySQL or something equivalent and web server, which is typically Apache, right? More details from him. Okay, before going to installation, one main thing I want to remember, because during the main workshop, we are getting lot of calls from, I forgot my password or user ID. For that, you just go to the website it.itb.ac.in slash Moodle and click on this link. Tell it to the participant, click here, lost password. So it will ask, if you know the username, you can put your username. Otherwise, you just put your email address and continue. Then you will surely get a mail from admin user. Then you can change it from there. And it's the main thing. The change of our lost password recovery is very similar to what you do for Google or Yahoo. It will say lost password. Then it will ask you a few questions or ask for some identity. Then there will be a legally registered email address or perhaps an alternate email address where a link will be sent. Click on that link and it will allow you to change or create a new password. Now you can see there is a mail from the admin. Then you can see anyone can try like this putting your username and password. First, you want to confirm. So for confirming, you want to click on this link. Again you will receive one more mail. So in that you can see this is a temporary user ID and password. Using that you can log in and change. When you log in the moment itself, it will ask for changing the password. Please reset the password. So this is the procedure for changing the password. So then installation of Moodle. Moodle is an open source software. You can download it from the website. So for that you need Apache PHP MySQL. Otherwise PostgreSQL, Oracle also it will support. So I think hope we already covered how to install, how to configure Apache PHP MySQL during the orientation workshop for technical staff. So you want to just download the Moodle folder and put it on the extract and put it on the var www folder. And you want to create one more folder called Moodle data. Then go to the web browser and put the ip slash Moodle. Then the screen will come. You can configure the symbol stuff. That way you want to configure Moodle. So right now it is not possible to show it here. I am sorry. If you have any question you can ask. You can search it in Google. It is Moodle.org. It is possible to install it on Windows also. But our servers are running on Linux only. So from here you can download. This is the package. You can download this. So exactly from past 2 or 3 years we are running Moodle and we are facing problem that we are unable to make the availability of Moodle on internet as well as on internet. It is working only on one single ip. So either we can put it on our public ip or on our internet ip. So can you suggest some of the changes that we have to do in confile so that it may be available on both. You want to post it on outside? Yeah. You can use a urn. No exactly. It is not responding on two nyc cards. It is responding only on single nyc. It is only for a specific pc it is working. It is working for complete internet or internet. But it would not be available on both. That is internet as well as on internet. If you enter it in the DNR when it is possible. Exactly. I have tried all the things but when we are doing changes in confile at that time it is directing that on specific ip that we are specifying in confile. Ok. In that I think the wrong is that instead of the ip you want to put the url there then it will work. My database error. Moodle underscore database this type of error is generated. Database error means. I carefully read the instruction. Actually it contains a file. This is read me something file and I install according to the instruction. Ok. But it shows database error. Database error means the database is not connected. Database is not found. Moodle underscore database. Maybe. I created a Moodle database named Moodle. But. Ok then maybe I think php- which my server you are using database server. Sir I try to install it in windows. Windows. Windows I do not have any idea. Because we are not at riding windows. See I will tell you something. I thought I was a linux person but it turns out that all our web servers particularly the Moodle and other servers of the institute and particularly of these are essentially linux machines. So if you ask me or him anything about anything related but sir this website contains two types of version and four linux or four windows. Ok sir anyway you just posted on the Moodle. I will figure out and suggest you. This problem is the latest version of Moodle. When we select the database we have to select utf utf Unicode 30 then it will be solved automatically. When you are creating database in maybe Linux or maybe Unix by default format utf it will not give you the solution. So you have to select manually the utf Unicode then it will support. Only that you have to change and it will work. Customize. Mainly it is running on PHP. If you have a PHP programmers you can customize. If you want to develop plugins that is also possible. Right now our this registration is automated. It's a five step process. First you want to register on NME ICT website then you will get request something after that once you approve that time only the Moodle ID will generate. So that is automatic. And programs are written by our program.


Welcome to the Endless Knot. Today, we're talking turkey. You may already know that the bird is named after the country. But why? Turns out that exploring that question can tell us a lot about Thanksgiving too. So, the story of the turkey's name starts with Portuguese trading and confusion with a similar bird, the guinea fowl. The guinea fowl comes originally from Africa, where it has long been an important food. The Romans spread it from North Africa across their empire, but when that fell, the bird disappeared from Europe. However, the guinea fowl was reintroduced into Europe by the Turks in the 15th century when it became known as the turkey cock, or turkey hen, in other words, the poultry from Turkey, in the belief that that's where the birds came from. The origin of the word turkey itself is uncertain, though it might have been recorded as early as 177 BCE in Chinese as Tukin, referring to a people living south of the Altean Mountains. In Persian, turkey is said to mean a beautiful youth, a barbarian, or a robber. However, it might in fact come from an old Turkic root, which means created, strong, or lineage. Oh, and turquoise also comes from the country's name for similar reasons of trade and was sometimes called turkey stone, or simply turkey. Speaking of trade, it was the spice trade from India that was the real prize commodity at that period. The Ottoman Empire and the Venetians had the direct root locked up between them and were thus making a mint from selling the eastern spices to all of Europe. But the Portuguese decided on an altogether more adventurous plan to reach India entirely by sea by sailing around Africa, and after Vasco de Gama's explorations at the end of the 15th century, they started shipping spices back from Calcutta, India to Europe. They traced their way along the coast and would of course stop at various points picking up other commodities that were available, including the guinea fowl from West Africa. So they brought them back to Europe as well, along with their haul from India.  Almost literally, in addition to spices from India, they picked up gold, ivory, and slaves from West Africa. So they did what any emerging capitalist venture would do. Keep the details of their trade routes and sources a corporate secret. So no one back in Europe knew exactly where anything the Portuguese were importing came from, including the guinea fowl. While some still called them turkey cocks, they also started picking up names like in French, pool-dained, hen from India, or simply dained, or in Dutch, calcone, referring to Calcutta. So how did names like turkey and dained come to refer not to what we know as guinea fowl but to the bird native to the Americas? At about the same time the Portuguese traders were importing all these goods from their trade route to India, the early 16th century, they also picked up real turkeys in mid-Atlantic island trade from Spanish merchants, who had brought them back from the New World, after Columbus, in an attempt to reach the Indian spices by sailing across the Atlantic, bumped into the Americas. Not that he knew it at first. The Spanish conquistadors had been the first Europeans to encounter the New World turkeys, which had long been domesticated by the Aztecs, who called the male Huaxolotl and the female Totolin. Turkeys were an important animal to the Aztecs, as well as the Maya and other Mesoamerican groups, to the point that they were associated with the Aztec trickster god, Tetscatlipoca, who could appear as Chao Chu Totolin, the jeweled turkey, and whose priest would be decorated with turkey feathers. The Spanish had already been bringing back turkeys for a little while, along with all the gold they plundered from the Aztecs, but it was the Portuguese importing two similar types of bird, guinea fowl and New World turkeys, and keeping the sources of both of them vague or secret that led to Europeans confusing the two and calling them all by the same name, turkey cock or hen from India or whatever. And the original Spanish heir in thinking of the New World as India didn't help to clarify anything. To be fair, the two birds did look fairly similar, particularly the helmeted guinea fowl with its distinctive head and spotted feathers. So in the end, the name turkey stuck for the New World turkey, but the guinea fowl came to be distinguished by the name it has today, when its association with the area of Africa known as Guinea became clear. That part of the coast of West Africa came to be called guinea by the Portuguese, who as we've seen were the European experts on West Africa. They probably got it from a North African language, maybe the Berber word agonaw, meaning black, in reference to the dark color of the skin of the inhabitants further south in Africa. Later on, when the European traders reached the South Pacific, they used the name New Guinea to refer to one of the large islands they found there, due to perceived similarities in the populations. In the 17th century, the English started making a gold coin that came to be known as the guinea, initially for the use of the company of royal adventurers trading to Africa, who profited from the slave trade in the region, and made from gold they also imported. And by the way, the story of the guinea pig is similar to that of the turkey. Guinea pigs, which are neither pigs, nor come from Guinea, actually come from South America, where they were, and still are an important food source in many regions, particularly around the Andes Mountains, where they were domesticated some 7,000 years ago. Like the turkey, the guinea pig was also important for ritual purposes. For instance, among the Inca, guinea pigs were sacrificed to the gods and eaten as part of ceremonial or festive meals, not unlike turkeys at Thanksgiving dinner. Guinea pigs have also been used in traditional healing or divination rituals, and even turn up in depictions of the Last Supper. The Spanish imported the animals into Europe, Queen Elizabeth had one as a pet, where they came to be known as the guinea pig, likely because they were part of the same West African mid-Atlantic trade route that led to the turkey guinea fowl confusion. So, it's perhaps not surprising that their name in French is Cauchon d'Ainde, or pig from India. But the confusion between the birds even seems to have tripped up the scientists. When Carl Linnaeus, the great taxonomist, categorized them, he used the Roman word for guinea fowl, meleagris, ultimately from Greek, as the genus of the turkey, and the species of the helmeted guinea fowl. There's an origin story associated with the word meleagris. In the usual backward fashion of myth, it claims that the bird was named after the hero meleagre. When the meleagre was a baby, his mother, Althea, was told by the fates that he would live only so long as a log that was on the fire lasted. His mother, of course, put out the burning log and locked it away for safe keeping. Years later, his father, Oeneus, who according to myth had given wine to the Greeks, so you might want to raise a toast to him at your Thanksgiving dinner, forgot to honor the goddess Artemis with the first fruits of his harvest at the annual harvest festival. Artemis was miffed and sent the monstrous Caledonian boar to terrorize the kingdom. Meleagre organized a great hunt, and after the boar was killed, a fight broke out over the spoils, and meleagre killed his uncles. His mother, furious at the death of her brothers, throws the fateful log onto the fire, and meleagre dies. His sisters, wearing black outfits of mourning, are in their grief transformed into birds, their tears becoming the spots on the bird's feathers, and that's the bird we now know as the guinea fowl.  But it's quite appropriate that the beginning of the whole Caledonian boar story is Oinius' failure to honor Artemis in a harvest festival, since it of course connects to the turkey's starring role in the modern Thanksgiving feast. But getting back to the New World turkey, though the turkey is often associated with the early thanksgivings in North America, today's domesticated turkey descends from the Aztec domesticated fowl that was brought back to Europe and selectively bred there and was then introduced into North America by the English colonists who saw the wild turkeys in the New Land as being similar to our English turkeys, effectively appropriating the turkey as a European animal. Both guinea fowl and New World turkey spread through Europe in the 16th century, and by the end of that century, the turkey had become the standard of feast like Christmas dinner. William Shakespeare even mentions the turkey a number of times, including figuratively of a proud or arrogant person. Speaking of Shakespeare, his play The Tempest seems to have been inspired by the shipwreck of the sea venture on its way to the newly founded Jamestown colony, one of the sites, as we will see, that claims the first thanksgiving in the New World. So, why is the turkey connected so strongly to thanksgiving? Well, the commonly told story is of the feast held by the pilgrims at the Plymouth colony after surviving their first year in 1621 to express their gratitude to God and to the local native inhabitants who had helped the colonists survive the harsh winter and who brought the turkeys to the feast. But there are a number of historical problems with the story. While the Native Americans certainly did help the settlers make it through the first winter, the colonists do not seem to have intended the feast as a reciprocal gesture of gratitude, but as, in part, a show of strength to allies they did not fully trust. And the relationship between the two groups was complicated from the very beginning, and even if the Wampanoag people did bring wild turkeys to the feast, the settlers would already have been familiar with the domesticated turkey, and in any case, they weren't a very big part of the dinner. Also, the pilgrims weren't really pilgrims. They never used that name for themselves, though I suppose it would have been appropriate. The word pilgrim comes from Latin pair, meaning through, and agar, meaning field, or countryside. The idea being literally wandering through the countryside, and that agar root also gives us agriculture, appropriate for a harvest festival. They were followers of Calvinism, though, and they were against holidays and merry-making, and like many Protestant groups, they instead had an austere religious tradition of days of Thanksgiving, which often ironically involved fasting, not feasting, and which could be held for a variety of reasons, whenever they felt the need to express gratitude to God. And the feast at the Plymouth Colony was one of these, and did mark the successful harvest as well as their first year. But that first feast did not begin a yearly tradition. It was a one-off event, nor was it even the first day of Thanksgiving held in North America. Jamestown, Virginia, the first English colony in the Americas, which is connected with Shakespeare's play, The Tempest, you remember, has a recorded day of Thanksgiving in 1619, two years earlier than the Plymouth event. It celebrated surviving a very harsh winter and not starving to death, and was triggered by the arrival of another ship of settlers with fresh supplies so that they had food again. But there's an even earlier Thanksgiving celebration in North America than Jamestown, and what later became Canada, which is appropriate since nowadays, Canadian Thanksgiving is celebrated more than a month earlier than the American holiday. In 1578, the English sailor Martin Frobisher and his crew, attempting to find a Northwest passage to reach India and China and all those valuable trade commodities, was driven back by storms and landed on Baffin Island and declared a day of Thanksgiving for their safe landing. So not a harvest festival, but still giving thanks for surviving hardship. Frobisher, who had started out his maritime career with a trip to Guinea, remember that place, was not a careful and accomplished explorer, and gave up on his search for a Northwest passage when he thought he found a source of gold, which turned out to be worthless pyrite. And there's one last contender for the first Thanksgiving. Way back in 1565, the Spanish admiral Pedro Mendez de Aviles, after catching sight of land at Florida on the feast day of St. Augustine of Hippo, who happened to be the patron saint of his hometown, founded and named the new colony San Agustín and immediately declared a day of Thanksgiving to celebrate their safe arrival, which was attended by some of the native inhabitants. St. Augustine, by the way, is held up by the Calvinists for the grand work for the Protestant Reformation, so I guess that brings us back to those so-called pilgrims. Now, none of those first Thanksgiving's established a tradition or tied it to the turkey. But throughout the colonial period, there were various days of Thanksgiving, as there were in the Canadian colonies. The first official National Canadian Day of Thanksgiving was declared in 1879 in honour of the Prince of Wales recovering from an illness. And there were various local harvest celebrations, but no national holiday. The festival did develop independently in New England, held in November with a mainly religious focus. And that celebration tended to include turkey, because that bird had long been a feature of festive meals in England, replacing the goose and the guinea fowl, as I mentioned earlier. And so, when Thanksgiving eventually became a national holiday in the US, elements of that New England tradition became widespread, like the turkey and the cranberry sauce. But not everyone is happy that there's a national holiday that celebrates the settlement of North America by Europeans. Since 1970, there has been a national day of mourning held at Plymouth Rock on the same date as Thanksgiving to commemorate the genocide of Native people in the theft of Native lands. So I should point out that although the turkey in the Thanksgiving feast has been turned into a symbol of the peaceful and friendly relations between settlers and Native Americans, actually it served because of the English tradition of eating turkey at celebratory feasts as a result of its appropriation by earlier European settlers from Mesoamerican people they conquered. Not because of it being among the foods contributed by Native Americans at Plymouth. But turkey is the one thing that Canadian Thanksgiving, which actually comes more directly from British harvest festivals, owes to the US. The United Empire loyalists who left the US for British held Canada at American independence brought the Thanksgiving turkey to Canada, because by that point the Americans were really into turkeys. Benjamin Franklin even argued for the wild turkey to be the national bird of the United States rather than the eagle, if you can picture that. So from first fruits at a harvest festival to early trade routes to India and secret origins to the search for other routes to the Orient and the first feasts of Thanksgiving to the appropriation of food and land from the first nations, the story of the turkey's name is in many ways the story of the spice trade and exploring it teaches us about Thanksgiving and its own origins in the many confusions, conquests, cultural clashes and changes of that period. If you're sitting down to a Thanksgiving turkey anytime soon, try spicing up the dinner conversation with a peppering of etymology and consider the unexpected twists and turns that brought you and it here. Thanks for watching. If you've enjoyed these etymological explorations and cultural connections, please subscribe to this channel to help me make more videos. You can also sign up for email notifications of new videos in the description below. Leave a comment or question or tweet at alliterative. You can also read more of my thoughts on my blog at alliterative.net