Okay, so I wanted to tell you about this LibreOffice port I've been working on for the past three years, on and off, not continuous time frame. I'm Katsper Kasper and I write software for a living and as a hobby. I'm a high-co-developer. I mostly write applications. I sometimes contribute something to the system itself. I've also contributed quotes KDE and some other small open source projects. So what is high-co? High-co is an open source MIT licensed operating system. It is a BOS array implementation. BOS was an operating system that died in 2001 because the company behind it bankrupted. But it had really a lot of really nice technical solutions. So our goals are to be desktop oriented. We are not aiming for tablets or anything like that. We are focused to make sure that working on a desktop is comfortable. We maintain binary compatibility with BOS so you can run your old applications without recompiling them. And we want to deliver consistent user experience and we can do that by controlling the whole stack. We have our custom kernel. Our windowing system is also custom. And there are two official flavors. There is GCC2-based 32-bit and GCC5-based 62-bit. And before you run away screaming that it's GCC2, you don't actually have to comply with the C++ flavor that GCC2 understands. That's only a requirement for kernel code. You can actually write applications in GCC5 and run them on the GCC2 compiled system because we ship GCC5-compiled user space. So you don't really have to do anything with GCC2. This is the user interface. It's pretty old-fashioned but some users love it. Some users hate it. There is really not much more to say here. It's a matter of taste. Okay, but there is one question. Can you try LibreOffice? And well, as we're going to see, yes, it can, kind of, almost. So what is already out there? And the problem is that Haiku prouds itself to be desktop oriented, but there is not really an office to it. So that's a problem. And until very recently, you couldn't really... We didn't really have any office to it. There is Go Productive, but the problem is that it was commercial. It was proprietary and it was closed source. And we don't have the source code. It runs on Haiku only thanks to the binary compatibility. And it's really old. The last release was around 18 years ago and so it doesn't support any of the modern formats. Caligaro supported recently along with KDE frameworks, but this is very recent. It was supported in November 2017. And it's good enough for most these cases, but it's not as... It doesn't have as many features as LibreOffice has and... Yeah, so that's... Okay, so another office to it is ThinkFreeOffice and it was running thanks to OpenJDK. It was swing based, but they no longer sell licenses for that, so that's not really an option anymore. Some individual apps that were there, there was a Borg port, but it was actually in a state as my LibreOffice port is. It wasn't really usable. There is Summit. It's a spreadsheet application that was written for BOS. And there is Scribus, which is a cute application, because we have also a cute toolkit ported so any cute application can work on Haiku as well. Okay, so the timeline. I have started working on it in 2014 and to be honest, I didn't really know what I was doing. And I got sidetracked with our projects until the beginning of 2017 because that's the kind of a problem with Haiku that there is a lot of things to do and there are not a lot of people doing them. So when I came back to it, I've updated the base to 5.3 because previously I was working on master, but then I decided that it would be better to have a fixed reference to work on. And when I restarted the work, I got a first window rendered after two weeks, continued the work until the end of January and did some work in April. And that's the result. So later that year, we had the kernel debugging camp. It was Haiku coding sprint in November 2017. And it was really great because we could work on any Haiku related projects just all the time. So a lot of work done there. And just three days, I have implemented window positioning so that the code would reach the Haiku layer with respect where the window should be positioned. I rewrote the rendering back end to be more stable because lots of crashes were related to this threading model BAPI uses, which I'm going to talk about later, and implemented SAL virtual device, which got me this. So there are a few problems. Keyword input doesn't work yet, but that's really a matter of sitting down, I think like in a week it could be done. It crashes a lot. Yeah, it deadlocks sometimes. Windows updates, for some reason, start from the coordinates 8 and 8, which is really weird. I couldn't track it down yet. And saving a file works. Actually, it should be worked because I checked it today and it actually crashes. And trying to open one deadlocks this week. Okay, so challenges. Turnaround times are really long because compiling is pretty long, but then when I want to debug something, the debugger has to load a lot of symbols and it can take like one to minute. So anytime I run it, it takes a long time to track some problems. Some feature switches on the browser are unfinished, although it's documented. But for example, there are situations like when you disable scripting, some modules just won't build. The API's thread nature. So here, Hiker uses for each window a new thread is created. So that creates problems with VCL because it tries to render from the main thread and the window has its own thread. So every drawing operation needs to have locks around it. And that was the reason why it crashed a lot because sometimes command can be issued to the window that is already destroyed. So it's no longer there and then it crashes. There are bugs in the system, which I'm going to talk more about later. And there are lots of dependencies, which is also substantial amount, which amounts to a lot of work. Okay, so porting libraries is time consuming, but it's not that hard. Work is happening at Hiker ports, which is a port system like Brew or PKGSRC. And a lot of work was related to Document Liberation Project libraries because obviously we have ported free type for Hiker itself. And as says other more popular libraries were already there. But Document Liberation Project libraries are really used only by LibreOffice, so they need to be ported. But this process was pretty easy because Hiker has POSIX compatibility, even though we don't claim that we are Unix. So it compiles mostly out of the box. One exception was MWADW. And the issue was that Exeter, it used in Hiker, it's in another library, so it just needed to be linked in and then it built as well. Bugs in the system. So CPP unit tests can't be run because CPP unit tests to crashes on exit and it appears to be a random loader issue. It doesn't run pthread destructors when unloading the library. It tries to do that on application exit, but the library is unloaded so the code is not there and there is a crash. And I think that TLS is broken, but it's over my head. So the issue was that I was working on SAIL frame. I added another member and then it started randomly crashing. And I've worked around the issue by moving members to another structure and it works, but I have no idea what is happening there. Memory dumps are just garbage. They're, it just needs some debugging to be done. Okay, so closing thoughts. Nothing is upstream yet. My main fear is that we are going to upstream it and then nobody will work on it, so it will be pulled because currently I'm just one person working on it and it's quite a huge undertaking. It was actually easier to do than expected. There is not a lot of code that needed to be touched. It's just VCL, other SAIL and OSL layers. It was just adding FDFs in proper places. Some code could be used more, I think at least because, for example, SAIL bitmap is just a code from Windows layer copied almost verbatim with only the system functions changed. And there is a link to, oh, there is, there is, and I think the easiest part is done. It just needs to be stabilized, but that will obviously take much more work. Here is a link to the repo where you can find all the code. I will try to upstream some of it, but that might happen a bit later. So any questions? No, no, no. It's, I've done, the layer is native BAPI. Yeah, it's a new, completely new layer. So as we have some time, I can do a live demo, although it's not really impressive because it doesn't go very far. Okay, so the first time it will crash, probably because something isn't implemented. And the second one works. And I can leave it out an image. Yeah, so that's all I have for today.


the Institute of International European Affairs. I've great pleasure in welcoming you all to our meeting today with Mr. Juan Fernando Lopez Aguilar, who is the chair of the European Parliaments Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. We're delighted to have Mr. Lopez Aguilar speak to the IIA this morning on a topic which is of which is among the greatest challenges faced by the European Union at present. That is how to bring about and to shape a humane migration and asylum policy for the European Union. A challenge which is exacerbated by the particular pressures surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the predicament in which migrants and refugees find themselves as a result. Mr. Lopez Aguilar has been a member of the European Parliament since 2000. He's a distinguished former Minister for Justice of Spain and head of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party in the Canary Islands. He's also been a member of the Spanish Parliament and the Secretary-General of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party in the Canary Islands. At the same time, he has built up an academic career as a professor of constitutional law at the University of Las Palmas. Mr. Lopez Aguilar will speak to us for about 20 to 25 minutes and then we'll open the floor to the audience. We're looking forward to what I'm sure will be a very stimulating and an interesting address which, incidentally, is on the record and at all points. Mr. Lopez, we are, once again, you're very welcome and the floor is yours. Well, first of all, good day to you all. It is my honor and my privilege and I'm thankful for giving me the chance to exchange some views with the attendance of this session of yours Institute of International and European Affairs in Dublin. I hope I will be of some use to this discussion and to its participants. Yes, I'm a professor of law by training. I've been in the European Parliament ever since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. Actually, 2009, after having served in the Spanish Government as Minister of Justice, I moved to the European Parliament and I have chaired the Committee of Liberty, Justice and Home Affairs, which, by the way, is the busiest committee in the house, the widest legislative scope and the committee which best expresses the lawmaking dimension of the European Parliament ever since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force. So, if you allow me, I will be speaking for, let's say, some Do you see me? Yes. Yes, okay, because I will be speaking, let's say, for 10, 15 minutes, no more than that, so that I can open as room as possible for the discussion, so that we may exchange views and I can take questions and answers, if you will, okay? So, let's get started. The first point I wanted to make is that precisely, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force in coincidence with my landing in the European Parliament 2009, along with the Charter of Honourable Rights and with the Lisbon Treaty came along the European area for Liberty, Justice and Security, which is Articles 67 to 89 from the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union. And in that space, European space for Liberty, Justice and Security, you see that many competencies that were long the realm of the member states, the sovereignty of the member states are now the domain of the European Union competence, including migration and asylum. For a long time, migration and asylum were conceived to be a core issue for the sovereignty of the member states, no longer. Now, they are European Union competence, both for policymaking and both and lawmaking. And we in the European Parliament, we have grown up to become a true parliament, a true lawmaking body in which we do make laws on the matter. So, the second point I want to make is that according to the Lisbon Treaty, we have adopted laws on migration and asylum and we have done from the European Parliament side our best to build up a truly European common asylum system and a common migration policy and legislation. So, we adopted, in the first mandate in which I chaired the Liberty Committee 2009-2014, the so-called migration package along with the Schengen package, which is the set of pieces of legislation which secure free movement within the Schengen area and a common management of the external borders of the European Union and an asylum package. The migration package is an array of pieces of legislation. We adopted, before I came to the European Parliament, that was in 2008, the so-called return directive. But along with the return directive, we have set forth a number of pieces of legislation trying to create some ground for legal entry and legal migration to the European Union, including the single permit directive, including the posted workers directive, including the seasonal workers directive, which are of the essence for many countries, particularly in the agriculture sector, including the blue card directive so that qualified workers from abroad may enter regularly into the European Union, including the Schengen borders code, including the European visa code, of which I happen to be a rapporteur myself, too, which sets a common policy to enter the territory of the European Union along with the so-called interoperability package, which makes sure that all of the data at disposal of the visa information system and Schengen information system, etias and entry exit system, are compatible. And they may be shared among the member states, sharing the area of liberty, justice and security. But we also adopted a so-called asylum package in all, including, of course, the agency, the special agency, which helps the states to handle asylum demands into the European Union, which is the so-called ASO, the agency for supporting the asylum system, and Dublin regulation, which is the regulation, which is a European law binding for the member states, which sets the responsibility to handle the asylum requests and to handle the social services and protection, which is entailed by the grant of a refugee statute. We also adopted the whole asylum array of pieces of legislation, including the qualifications directive, the common procedure directive, the receptions directive, and along with all that, we also established a so-called relocation program, which is binding for the member states, and resettlement program with the help of the UNHCR. So the third point I want to make is that there is no legislative void at all. There is law at sight. There is effective law, which has been enacted by the European Parliament as a true lawmaking body. We have made laws on the matter, and those laws are effective in force, and they are binding for the member states. But the fourth point I want to make is that in coincidence with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and all this work that we have carried out throughout the years, the European Union has somehow submerged itself into the worst series of crisis ever in the European process history. We know that there was the great recession, wow, the worst crisis ever. Then there came the so-called migration crisis, wow, the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean, but not only in the Mediterranean, Brexit, and now the COVID pandemic. So it's been a series of critical episodes in which the European Union has lost momentum. And you know what? There has been an increasing number of member states defying, challenging the European law, showing lack of political will to stand by the European principles in every possible way, including the so-called illiberal regimes, which are under the so-called Article 7 Procedure, which is also the competence of the Comedian Chair, Comedian Liberies, Paramount Rights, Justice, and Home Affairs. And there have been an increasing number of countries which have been defying the legal mandate of solidarity, binding solidarity, and shared responsibility, both to handle migration flaxes, external borders of the European Union, and asylum seekers' requests and refugees statute within the European Union. So we have seen an increasing number of infringement procedures dealing with the contempt towards European law that has been shown by a number of member states of the European Union, and a number of rulings of the European Court of Justice condemning the violations of European law by an increasing number of member states regarding both migration and asylum legislation. And that is why we have come to some kind of a deadlock. We have seen that increasingly so, both migration package and asylum package need to be reviewed and updated, but not to step backwards, not to make it in the wrong direction. But in the view of the Comedian Chair, precisely to refine the legal instruments at site so that everybody knows which are the rules of the game, but making sure that the mandates of binding solidarity and shared responsibility, which are enshrined literally in Article 80 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union are fully respected by all of the member states. Then there came the UN big global pact of migration and asylum adopted by the UN General Assembly Special Conference in 2018. And then came the Special Conference on Migration and Asylum convened in Geneva with the participation of the IOM, UNHCR, and also the European institutions, including the European Parliament in the relation that I chaired December 2019. And then came the idea that we should be needing some kind of an updated pact on asylum and migration to make sure that all the countries abide by the rules of the area of liberty, justice, and security based on mutual trust and effective cooperation, but mostly on solidarity and shared responsibility. So, President von der Leyen, on her way to be invested by the vote of the European Parliament, which she did, promised that she would deliver a new pact on asylum and migration. And that commitment has been taken by the new Commissioner in charge for the Home Portfolio, the Swedish Commissioner, Ilva Johansson. So, throughout her hearing examination, thorough examination of her capacity to tackle the portfolio that had been invested upon her, she committed herself to deliver a new pact on asylum and migration by March 2020. But you know what? By March 2020, again, all the calendars were in a complete upheaval because of the coronavirus crisis. Yes, we understand that this coronavirus crisis is a serious matter that has somehow put to a halt the whole calendar of commitments that were to be delivered by the new Commissioner of Home Affairs. So, she has postponed her commitment up until we somehow be back to normal in the European Parliament. I can tell you that chairing the Liberal Committee, we have been keeping up our work right from the very first day of this pandemic crisis, even in the worst conditions, even in confinement measures that have been imposed by many member states upon their citizens, including Spain, including my country, including my government. That means that we have been for some time working in remote, but it's been three or four weeks that we are back to Brussels, back to ordinary work in Brussels. Of course, with many difficulties because it's not easy to get to Brussels in these conditions, but we are doing our best to keep up our work. And we have heard from Commissioner Johansson that she would be delivering her new pact on asylum and migration by late July or early September. I guess it will be early September. And of course, we are worried that this new pact of asylum and migration shows, and I conclude, what in the view of the Liberal Committee, which I represent and my personal political view, is the wrong direction. The wrong direction is sticking to what I call a negative outlook to both migration and asylum, which means that somehow the European Union keeps in denial of any goodness, seeing any kind of goodness, both in migration and asylum seekers. I try to explain this negative view. This negative view dwells on the assumption that migration is a problem. And migration is a crisis.  That is, in my view, a wrong approach, which is doomed to fail. We have actually contested that wrong approach. We have adopted ever since 2016 a series of resolutions in which we endorse what we call a holistic approach, a positive approach towards migration and asylum. Of course, we understand that member states are worried about irregular migration. But let me tell you, in fact, it is seldom told that irregular migrants are returned in more numbers than they enter irregularly into the European Union, which means that even in the worst of the migration crisis, the return policy is underway, and it's very effective. And it's very seldom told, which means that we are no, by no means, we are no under some kind of an invasion. The migration fluxes are manageable. Insofar as there's political will to do it the European way and consistent with European law. Second, the idea is weird, the idea which is the assumption particularly in the Council is we wish migration would not exist, asylum seekers would not exist, but in so long as they exist, the principle is that those countries with vulnerable borders, particularly towards the Nigerian, the vulnerable external borders of the European Union, are the ones to be responsible for securing the borders. That is also wrong approach. That takes the European view. We have heard complaints time and again from Greece, Malta, Cyprus, Italy, Spain, which have vulnerable borders, external borders of the European Union towards the Iranian. But we insist that this is a European issue. Those coming to our soil are actually looking for, do you see me? Can you hear me? Excuse me because I lost track of you. In my screen, I don't see you anymore. I'm going to try to catch up and get you back. But anyhow, if you can hear me, I'll finish. So I tell you that we have to overcome this negative look and come to a more positive approach, which includes of course cooperation with the countries of origin and transit, which includes of course a serious and effective return policy. But which includes also social inclusion, social integration, and legal pathways, regular pathways to make it to Europe. And I conclude stating a case. I have been a strong advocate within the European Parliament for two causes. One is enlarging the scope of humanitarian visas. Why? Because it is a fact that 95% of those who have been granted asylum refugee statute within the European Union came to the European Union in the first place irregularly. Why did they do that? Because they were not given a chance to make it regularly. And by that, I mean that they had to expose themselves to the illicit trafficking of human beings and human exploitation, which is a nightmare, which is an incredible nightmare of human rights violations. Absolutely intolerable in a union of the moral statue of the EU. That should not happen. They have to expose themselves to illicit trafficking of human beings and to the ordeal of crossing the Sahara or Libya or those incredible ordeals, because they are not given the chance to make it regularly to the European Union. We have to, first of all, enlarge legal pathways to make it to the European Union. Second, we have to come up out with a truly European framework for search and rescue. Because we see that many times search and rescue are executed by NGOs and humanitarian organizations and volunteers, which are subject to be criminalized on the grounds of the facilitation directive which allows member states to equate humanitarian aid or rescuing people of disease with cooperation with illicit trafficking of human beings, which in my view is unacceptable too. But the point is that those search and rescue operations should not be trusted to NGOs and humanitarian missions, but to a truly European effort, which could be also helped with the enhancement of the Frontex Agency that we have set in force by new legislation also adopted in the European Parliament. That is why in my view it takes a more positive approach, a more positive outlook to really make sense of the new pact of asylum and migration. Otherwise, it should be a missing chance, a missed opportunity that we should not allow ourselves if we want to actually fulfill the promise of the Lisbon Treaty on the European Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union when it entered into force nothing less than 10 years ago. I stop here and take your questions. Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Lopez Aguirre. I have to say I found that a very impressive and passionate presentation. Just on a personal note, I should say that much of what you said resonated with me because in 2016, the UN General Assembly adopted the so-called New York Declaration on Migrants and Refugees, and I happened to be the co-facilitator of that negotiation as the Irish Ambassador. And one of the things that we were trying to do was to ensure that positive dimension of migration was accepted worldwide. I would have to pay a small tribute, by the way, to Peter Sutherland, one of our compatriots who, as the UN Special Representative for Migration over 10 years, insisted that migration had to be seen as a positive opportunity. And in a sense, I followed in Peter's footsteps by getting that sentiment agreed as part of the New York Declaration. You are doing very valuable work in the European Parliament in the same direction, and that's one of the reasons why I was very taken by your presentation. And it's now more urgent than ever because of the rise of populism in parts of the EU since then. Let's go straight over to questions. And I suppose I just kick off with one myself, that you talked about what the European Commission has been trying to do in its first few months under the new team. Once you're reading of the overall political mood at present, I suppose you can read best the sentiment within the Parliament. But do you feel that this negativism that you're talking about is still persisting, or do you see any chinks of light, any reason to be optimistic? Well, first of all, shall I take questions one by one, or shall I take, shall I hear? Okay, if you allow me, I'll do this verse one, and then I'll take some questions, I'll take note, and then I'll try to summarize my reaction towards the points that I'm here to hear or to respond to. Well, first of all, that negativism is not declining on the contrary. It's been on the rise for all too long for understandable reasons. I said that the European Union has seen the worst series of crises ever. And that series of crises have not only confined themselves to be financial or economic. They have had political impact and social impact as well. Inequality is on the rise. Distrust have amounted to a rise of europhobic trends, nationalistic and reactionary moves, and platforms that have taken advantage of the malaise of this sense of dissatisfaction with the state of school, and the kind of answers that were provided by the European Union institutions, particularly throughout the Great Recession. I'm to acknowledge, too, that the kind of response that we're having after the pandemic and the coronavirus crisis is showing that the commission has somehow learned some lessons from the mistakes of the past. We criticized heavily, I myself, as chair of the Liberal Committee, but also as a socialist, because I am a socialist. I criticized heavily that the European Union reacted too little too late, but most importantly, in the wrong direction, before the Great Recession and the damage that it caused and the inequalities on the rise. In this time, the European Commission is reacting better, is reacting more promptly, is reacting more effectively, and it's reacting in the right direction. It's yet to be seen if it's sufficient or not. Particularly, we are waiting for the Council to make up its mind this late July, but the point I'm making is that, yes, there has been distrust and negativism, and most of it, of this negativism has been based on assumptions that have to be challenged, because they are fake assumptions. For instance, it is widely spread the impression across the public opinions of the member states that we are subject to somehow some kind of an invasion, ever since the so-called refugee crisis 2015, and that migration is out of control. It's never been true. The figures, even in the worst peak of the refugee crisis, which was certainly a consequence of the troubles in our neighborhood, namely the civil war in Syria, the protracted civil war, and millions displaced mostly to Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey, not to the European Union, but those who came to the European Union were by no means an invasion. They could have been handled if there would have been some solidarity, but there was not. So Greece felt abandoned. Then Italy felt abandoned towards the Libyan coast, and the reaction has been there. The reaction has been a rise of populistic trends, including a change of guard in the Italian government, in which Salvini, extreme right, nationalistic reactionary somehow interpreted that feeling of many Italians that they had been abandoned, and the rest of the member states were turning a blind eye towards the influxes coming to the Italian islands, eolic islands, or Sicily, or Naples, from Libya. So that negative trend is still there. It has to be tackled with leadership, and we urge the Commission to play its guiding role, not to simply hear from the member states that they're not willing to cooperate, and then come with a minimum common denominator kind of proposal. We want, on the contrary, the Commission to show ambition, to show leadership, to show guidance, of course, understanding that the member states are reluctant, some member states are particularly reluctant, but also facing those member states which are not only denying any solidarity towards those who have external borders toward the Mediterranean, namely the so-called Visigrad group, mostly Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic, and draw the consequences of that guiding role and leadership, including not only infringement procedures, but also minorizing those countries in the Council. We have complained many times that the Council has taken on the assumption that its decision should be made by consensus, meaning unanimity, but the European law does not require unanimity from the Council. It would suffice, qualify the majority, so those member states which are reluctant to show any will to stand up to mutual trust and solidarity and share responsibility should be minorized in the Council, and for that it takes a commission which takes also its guiding role, and of course negative attitudes are also expressed within the European Parliament. Increasingly so, because there has been an increase of extreme right nationalistic and europhobic seats within the European Parliament in the last two elections, and in this particular mandate of the European Parliament the numbers are high, but they can still be minorized by a pro-European majority, both in the Liberal Committee and in the Plenary. Of course it'll take the cooperation between the EPP, which is the first group, the largest group, the S&P, I'm a Socialist, the second group, Renew, the Liberals, third group, but also Greens, and at times, at times, GUE, which are more pro-European than the extreme right and the Nationalists, the so-called United Left, so that we can build up a majority which can inspire an asylum pact, a new asylum immigration pact, which is more consistent with European values, with European law, which I insist is effective by now, there is no legislative void that needs to be filled in, maybe we may update it, but there is no legislative void, and with humanitarian law, which is binding in disease, because there is also international humanitarian law, which is violated much too often, particularly when closing harbors to search and rescue operations, that is illegal in international law, and it's good that it's told, that it's said, that it's outspoken vocally, that's what I do in the Liberal Committee. Thank you, now we hear the rest of the questions. Okay, thank you very much, I mean, you've set out the challenges very, very clearly, and I think we all hope that it'll be possible for the European Commission and the Parliament to help to stimulate a consensus on the new pact. So just turning to some of the questions, first of all, the question generally about the role of the African Union in terms of promoting more legal pathways for people to come to the EU, and also incurring irregular migration flows, how do you see the partnership with the African Union? And I suppose generally, more generally, do you see a risk that the, let's call it the delay of a few years that we've had in updating the Union's migration asylum policy, is there a risk that that will, or is already affecting partnership relationships with our partners in Africa? I mean, are they coming to doubt perhaps European sincerity on all of these issues? A third question I just add in is Libya. Do you feel that specifically, or how would you like to see the new pact deal with Libya, with the Libyan search and rescue area, and the allegations of human rights abuses there? So if that's not too much, I'll invite you to address those. Okay, thank you. Thank you for the questions, very interesting. I'll try to summarize. First of all, it must be said that there is an internal dimension of the asylum and migration policy and lawmaking in the European Union, which points out to the responsibilities of the member states to abide by European law. But there is also an external dimension which takes a lot of European Union going global and behaving as a global actor, worth of its name. That is, in my view, the challenge of the European diplomacy, the European external action services, which are headed by everybody know the so-called High Representative, which is also Vice President of the Commission, and which is also chairing the Council of General Affairs, that means the Council of International Relations or Foreign Policy when it comes to the gathering of member states, foreign ministers. That is Pepe Borrell, the Spanish guy in charge by now. First it was, we know before him, it was Federica Mogherini and, well, we have been rehearsing the capacities of the European Union to engage with the African Union, which is sitting in its quarters in Ethiopia, Arisaveva. I think it is most interesting that we do our best to get the cooperation of the countries which are also being part of this experience of combining energies to secure fruitful and constructive interlocution with rest of the global actors, including the European Union. I may say that the first foreign visit of President for the Lion when she took office was precisely to the African Union headquarters in Arisaveva and the same goes with the High Representative. So we're taking seriously Africa. It is increasingly the great interlocutor for the European Union, increasingly so. I could also say that as a Spaniard, I always insist that we should not overlook Latin America, but yes it is a fact that Africa is the giant. Africa is the giant, the neighboring giant for the European Union. We need to cooperate with Africa particularly when it comes to countries of origin and transit. The second point I want to make is that it is important that we know and it is seldom told that migrations are in Africa of gigantic dimension, within Africa, within Africa. In the European Union, it is often the impression in the public opinion of the member states that all migrants or potential migrants of the European Union are looking outwards to the European Union, are looking to the European Union, are approaching the European Union.  Migrations are taking place all over the world and I would say the continent, which is by now more reluctant and more armored against migration in the global actor, which is more aggressively relaxed and negative towards migration keeps being the European Union, is still the European Union. It is a very small percentage of the migration flows in the world, those who are approaching the European Union, but those who are approaching the European Union, we need to take them seriously and cooperate with the African countries. I would also add that, yes, when it comes to legal pathways, we have to understand that enlarging the legal pathways would be a way to tackle and dismantle what we call the illicit trafficking of human beings business model. They make a lot of money, they make a lot of money of the lack of legal pathways. There are so many in this pair that considering that they cannot make it to Europe regularly, they pay whatever the price, even inducting themselves for the rest of their lives to mobsters and traffickers for the sake of being given a chance to approach the European Union. And that is a misery that we cannot tolerate. We should combat it with a constructive approach that has to be European if we want to be effective when having an interlocution with a global actor as it is the African Union and the way. And yes, it is, I think there has been a postponement and a delay because for all too long we have dragged our feet, but I would say when we approach the European architecture that we should single out the accountability of every institution. In my view, the European Parliament is still breathing a European majority and it's still making up its mind. We still build majorities in the European Parliament. We still enact laws, first reading, second reading. It is in the council where you find the deadlock in all too many issues. In the council we see that many, many files have been blocked, including Dublin regulation, which bears the name of the capital of Ireland. Dublin regulation is known all over the world and every time I talk about Dublin regulation I have to explain what is it about? Where is the deadlock of Dublin regulation? Because literally it sets the responsibility for handling the asylum request and protecting the refugee on the country of first entry, which means number one, an overload to countries with a border towards the Mediterranean, namely Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Italy and Spain. Second, it does not prevent secondary movements because once they are there, despite the efforts of those countries and all the resources that are requested from those countries, asylum seekers or refugees keep moving, keep moving somewhere else at times, of course, for the sake of better standards to watch north. So there is a situation which proves dysfunctional, subject to criticism, to continued attacks of war and arguments, which result in increasing distrust between member states. We need to tackle the issues, but not to deny shared responsibility or solidarity, but on the contrary, to reaffirm shared responsibility and solidarity while updating the instruments, refining the instruments to make sure that solidarity is in place. So those are the challenges by now, and yes, we have seen a delay, but we only hope that it will be overcome when we can be back to some better level of normality in the functioning of our institutions right after the summer break in September after this coronavirus crisis. And as to Libya, I'll be clear on this. Once upon a time, Libya was a failed state, but it's been some time that Libya is a no state at all. It's a terrible place where the most unthinkable violations of human rights take place on a regular basis. It shouldn't be with impunity, but that is the situation by now. And I find it appalling that for the sake of dirty realism, some kind of a dirty realism, dirty real politic, member states are negotiating with whatever or whoever is in Libya for the sake of preventing migrants to take the risk of sailing a float towards the European Union with the risk of perishing in the attempt. That is terrible. The concentration camps in Libya, the kind of facilities in which those coming from Sub-Saharan Africa approaching the Libyan coast are detained and subject to unbearable human rights violations, including abuses of women and children, terrible abuses of women and children cannot be overlooked indefinitely by the European Union. And yes, we know that out of despair, Italy was the first to try to negotiate with Libya to prevent more irregular migrants trying to approach the Italian coast out of what we might call this dirty real politic exercise. It is miserable. We should not tolerate that indefinitely, but for sure, and I conclude, Libya is no safe harbor and takes safe harbor for the European Union to cooperate with this embarkation of people rescued at sea in whatever the situation. And it happens all too often that people are intercepted on their way to Europe and be brought to the Libyan coast with the cooperation of the European Union Agency Frontex. That should not happen. We should criticize that many times because in our view, it's intolerable. Libya is no safe place at all. And Libyan harbors are not safe harbors at all. That is what is very clearly stated in every resolution that has been adopted by the European Parliament. Thank you very much, Mr Dobos Agriar. I'll pass on now if I may three further questions, which I think are linked. One from a colleague in one of our universities in Dublin, Dublin City University is really about the issue of European values. You touched on that at one point. Can one really talk about moving towards or having common European values when certain member states, and I think we all know the names, are showing hostility towards and towards migration towards inward migration. And a related question would be the rule of law. How should we react to the fact that there are threats to the rule of law from such member states? And then thirdly, perhaps in a more positive vein, do you think that Germany as presidency of the council will have a better chance of overcoming the deadlock on the council that you were talking about? Yeah, that's a good set of questions, Sue. I thank you for that. First of all, values of the essence. I have said it a million times. The European Union is not the euro. The European Union is not the single market. The European Union is a union of law. And law takes principles and values. You know what they are enshrined. Once they were somehow vaguely defined by the rulings of the European Court of Justice, but now they have been put in writing. Article two of the Treaty of the European Union. What once were called the so-called Copenhagen criteria are no European constitutional values, namely rule of law, representative democracy, equality under the law, separation of powers which include judicial protection of fundamental rights, pluralism, political pluralism, protection of minorities, which means the guarantee of the function of the opposition, which means that I as chair of the Committee of Fundamental Rights, Liberties and Justice and Home Affairs of the European Parliament, I have presided a number of delegations to what they call themselves illiberal regimes. But you know what? Those illiberal regimes, namely Hungary and Poland, subscribed to the Treaty of Lisbon so that it entered into force. And now they are bound to those values. They are bound to the Treaty of Lisbon. They are bound to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which came along with the Lisbon Treaty, so they cannot simply violate those values and get away with it. I mean, our view, in the view of the Libyan Committee, they violate those values when they equate democracy with the rule of majority. Democracy is not simply ruling by law, laws enacted by a majority in Parliament. Democracy is rule of law, which means that no one is allowed to break the law, not even a parliamentary majority, when there is a constitution under their constitutional values that are enshrined in the European law. And democracy has never been simply the rule of majority. Democracy means protecting minorities, and that is also put in writing in Article II of the Treaty of the European Union. So we do care about those regressions, those constitutional breakdowns that have been taking both a place in both member states. I insist, I underline member states of the European Union, Hungary and Poland. That is why from the European Parliament we launched Article VII procedure, which is the device at disposal, which is device at our hand. Of course, it is cumbersome, the procedure. We adopted both the initiative in Hungary and Poland with two-thirds majority of the European Parliament. Not easy, that wasn't easy. It took us a long way, a lot of negotiations, and of course it took us serious of very grave indications of violating European Union values from those member states. It took us much hearing of the authorities of both countries. I have been in both countries, of course I have had talks with their prime ministers, with the ministers of justice, but yet we have seen that there have been a number of laws enacted by parliaments of those countries which are being subject to the rulings of the European Court of Justice, and yet those countries keep in contempt of the rulings of the European Court of Justice, that shouldn't happen. That is why we insist from the Council that they should take on the Article VII procedure that we and the European Parliament have set in motion. That is our response, and it is a serious matter, a very serious matter, that we see that there are countries which are in denial of fundamental principles of European law, including in this regard, they are liberty, justice, and security, any responsibility and any solidarity with those countries which are overloaded with hotspots or migration flaxes or asylum seekers. For instance, everybody knows that there were decisions being taken by the Council in order to relocate those which are overloading the capacities of certain hotspots in the Greek islands, namely Samos and Lesbos, and at times in Italy too, and these countries were subject to a procedure before the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Justice stated that they had violated the European law by denying any solidarity in their relocation programs and not accepting migrants or asylum seekers coming from the hotspots of the overloaded capacities of the country's automation. So that is a serious existential challenge for the European Union, and we should not underestimate the importance of that existential challenge. It is miserable that we keep hearing the testimonies of journalists being harassed, judges that have been removed from their positions and the preposterous allegations that they are some kind of a heritage of the communist regime, that they should be perched for the sake of the sanity of the Polish judicial system, let alone talk of the so-called LGBT free zones in Poland, which is subnautious, which is completely against European law, which forbids discrimination of people on the basis of their sexual orientation. That denial of European values should not be underestimated. In my view, they pose a serious existential challenge of the European Union, and after Germany, yes, it's a veteran. It's a heavyweight. Well, we have seen because that's the dynamic of the European architecture, we have seen a number of small member states of the European Union exercising their rotating presidency for the first time ever. We come from the Croatian presidency now, Croatia is the latest comer to the European Union. It entered into the European Union as number 28 by then. In 2013, the other day, yesterday, yesterday evening, so to say, but Germany, Germany is a founding member state is the heavyweight. So we expect from Germany a certain energy to tackle, to take on pending files, deadlocks and riddle them, put some energy to get them going, and some influence to break deals when necessary. Yes. And if I may say, I have written its program because every rotating presidency comes out with a certain written declarations of their ambitions. And it's quite large, quite significant. And it includes a very explicit chapter of rule of law, a very explicit chapter regarding article seven procedures, which in my view is meaningful. So I only hope that Germany will be of help not only not only to unriddle the current deadlock as to the so-called recovery plan, and its instruments grants, mostly grants and some loans with a proper combination of own resources and bonds, your recovery bonds for the so-called new generation recovery plan for Europe, and also unriddle the deadlock of the rule of law procedures, which are still pending on the table of the Council for all too long, because we in the European Parliament will have done a part of the job. I take more questions. Okay. Thank you very much, Natan. Thank you again for the passion and the commitment that you show in response to all of these questions. So there was a question from a colleague about really that the disparities in the way in which asylum cases are decided on from one member state to another. In other words, despite the various directives on asylum policy, for example, the return directive you referred to and the qualification directive, it seems that positive decisions on asylum cases very greatly from one member state to another. How can we overcome these disparities? Can we overcome them? That's really the question. And then let me quote also a comment which the Ambassador of Malta to Ireland has just made. And it really goes back to what you were saying a moment ago, Juan Fernando, about the unfair burdens carried within the EU. So the Ambassador makes the point that Malta has received over 22,000 migrants and asylum seekers since 2005, of whom only 8% have been relocated to EU countries. A handful of member states, Ambassador says, can't be expected to continue shouldering responsibility for migration flows. We need decisive and sensible solutions, particularly permanent and predictable relocation mechanisms. We can't depend any further on ad hoc solutions with only some member states pledging support. You'll be familiar with those sentiments, but if you could come back on the asylum cases, that'll be very interesting. That's probably all we have time for because I know that you have another commitment to go to. Thank you again for the questions. Most interesting. Of course, I thank all the participants and I thank all the attention that might be given to these issues which are sensitive and divisive. I could start out each and every one of my answers by saying, we're talking, now we're talking. Of course, these serious matter and they are open problems. So let me tell you that whenever I am part of this kind of conversation, I feel like saying, hey, listen, your concerns are my concerns. Your sensitiveness is my sensitiveness and your disarray, your dismay before the state of school as it stands by now is my dismay. I'm also unhappy about the situation. I'm a fighter. I'm not here not only to provide an analysis. I am here to put up a fight on these sensitive issues and to take a side because they are divisive. I tell you, in the European Union, their speeches and their attitudes which are very confrontational on these delicate matters. And I understand that. But having said this, you have dwelt on points which are now precisely subject to discussion into this exact point of time. Disparities, despite the effective law that we have adopted, it is a fact that there are many disparities into the member state's behavior. Some handle asylum seekers' requests with efficiency and provide a sufficient level of protection and so much more mean towards the possibilities of the law which is effective and which could be inspiring the kind of response. It depends largely on political will, but we got to make sure that at least we have provided the legislative, the pieces of legislation, the legislative framework which secures that there is a European common asylum system which makes sense at the European level and does not simply rely on the political will of the different member states to do these or that in a certain degree of extensions or death. You may see that, particularly when it comes to receiving people rescued in disease. You have seen that all too long the solution, particularly with the multi-declaration, which was meaningful and it was appreciated by the European Union. We said it is a step in the right direction, but is it enough? Is it sufficient? Is it acceptable as a European response? The answer to those questions keeps being no, because in the multi-declaration what it is behind, it is always some phone calls between Prime Ministers which come up with a certain level of compromise, a certain level of mutual assistance in the lack of a truly European kind of response and an exchange of phone calls between Prime Ministers is never enough as a European response. It does not suffice that whenever there is a boat stranded in the sea, particularly with vulnerable people, pregnant women or women with little kids, minors, what we call an accompanied minors too. That means minors without a mother, without a parent to take care of them. And what is the answer? Some Prime Minister calls to another Prime Minister and says, hey listen, you take five, I take eight and this other guy takes 10 and that'll do. For this time, for this time being, that'll do. Is it a European answer? No, that is not. We need a European framework. Those issues are the ones which are to be discussed with the occasion of the new pact on asylum and migration. Those issues, not simply the obsession on returning, returning, returning, because I insist returning is a very effective policy, but I insist we also have to care about binding solidarity. Greece has been complaining about lack of solidarity and the rest of the member states turning a blind eye on them. That is the origin of Golden Dawn, which is the Nazi extreme right in Greece. Malta has complained about lack of solidarity of the rest and the Maltese case is very significant because it is often told by the Maltese authorities they make a right point, a fair point, fair enough that they are the smallest country in the European Union. Their population is 400,000. For them to receive 22,000, it means a percentage of its population that would equate like Germany having 2 million asylum seekers all of a sudden. Because 20,000 for 400,000 is a percentage completely unbearable to the size of Malta. So Malta needs and deserves solidarity from the rest and I insist solidarity ever since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force is no longer a desideratum. It's no longer a wishful thinking. It's no longer, I wish it could happen. It is a binding mandate. It's a legal mandate enshrined by the law. So there has to be solidarity. No solidarity at all is not a legal choice. It's not a choice which is in accordance in conformity with the European law. On the contrary, it violates European law denying all solidarity with Malta. And the same came with Italy, which I said at a certain point of time somehow slipped into the dark side of the force with the extreme right Interior Minister, which was extremely disruptive for the for the management of this whole thing. And of course it is also systematically so the case of Spain and in the Canary Islands. Believe me, believe me because I live in the Canary Islands and maybe many of you do not know that by now Canary Islands is back again. Number one highest peak of irregular migrants, I mean aboard these so-called wooden boats, kayukos from Western Africa. So we have a problem of lack of solidarity here. These are the issues that have to be dealt with with the occasion of the new migration and asylum pact because we are not happy with the study school. We need to make sure that there is a commission which is highly committed to secure solidarity to those countries which have this external border of the European Union in their understanding that the impact and the effect of it all is truly European, that they are bound to come to the European Union, not only to Malta, not only to the Canary Islands, but also to the Greek islands, to the Oligales in Italy. They're actually bound European Union bound words. That is the issue here. And then of course, when it comes to the asylum fluxes and inequalities, I would simply add that that returns are very effective. They are mostly handled on the grounds of national capacities. There are many flights that are hired precisely to return irregular migrants from different member states, sometimes with the cooperation of Frontex, which is enlarging its capacity. The so-called Frontex, which is now the European external border and Coast Guard Agency. But in all, it is a fact that secure European common asylum system overseen by the EASO agency. And with the true European will, will take a new political cycle. And I only hope that this commission understands the problem, gets the problem right, and does its very best to persuade those member states, which are reluctant to be part of this European system framework and answer, that they have to move in the right direction. And still, enlarging the possibilities of those who are truly entitled to refugee status, according to international humanitarian law and to the qualifications directive, to be part of the European social fabric, to be given the chance to settle in the European Union and to be part and to contribute to the European diversity and wealth in every possible way. That takes, in my view, also a financial support. From the European Union, we have done our best to increase the budgeting in this regard. We have came forth with a number of instruments. A migration on asylum fund, so-called AMIF, and we have insisted that it has to be financed properly. An internal security fund, which is precisely to make sure that interoperability results in returns when they are needed. Although I insist that returns are more effective than widely seen, I usually come to the discussion just to check that many people think that there are no returns at all in Europe, that everybody who sets food on European soil is here for good, not true. Many of them are returned effectively. But those instruments, including the asylum immigration and internal security fund, should be a part of a new landscape in which we should be more consistent with the values and the principles that we have enshrined in European law. I only wish that this opportunity, this chance of discussing a new asylum immigration pact, which is consistent with the Global Immigration and Asylum Pact, which was adopted by the UN Declaration in December 2008 and continued with the conference in Geneva 2019. This opportunity, this chance will not be missed, that we will be delivering. Because in my view, there is nothing more threatening for the European Union, nothing more threatening by far more threatening than the idea of migration or asylum out of control by far more threatening than that. If there is something threatening is the divorce between the European Union promise and its delivery. It is about time that we actually deliver with the truly European common migration and asylum system worth of its name. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Robesaviar. Thank you for a superb tour d'horizon of all the issues we're facing in relation to migration and asylum. It's clear that a humane new pact and new policy will be in safe hands in the European Parliament under your watch. And we all look forward to an ambitious outcome to what the Commission is trying to do at present. We hope that they will take your advice to heart and we look forward to the right kind of pact emerging from that. Thank you for giving us your time. Thank you for your insights, your analysis. Most of all for your passion and your conviction on all of these issues, which are essential to the European values. Thanks very much. I hope we haven't detained you too long. We found it very rich in stimulation and we hope we'll see you again sometime. Thank you very much. It is me to thank you, the International and European Affairs Institute in Dublin. It is me to thank you for giving me this opportunity to talk to you and be of some help. That was my aim to provide some European Parliament insight and of course state the case of the European Parliament which in my view it is always of significance to clear out that within the European architecture there are institutions and there are some institutions which actually behave European that is the case of the European Court of Justice that is the case of the European Parliament but it takes in my view it takes some time to to see the Council behaving truly European not simply the sum of national governments looking at the national interests but also looking European, going European in the in the in the expression of their political will but anyhow my only aim was be of some use to this to this gathering and and I thank you I truly thank you for that and I only hope as I said that this occasion of us in this mandate of the European Parliament will be fruitful to deliver a new asylum and migration pact which are not only humane consistent with humanitarian and international and European law but also effective also effective which is also translated from words to acts thank you for that


Neutron radiation, neutron radiation is a form of ionizing radiation that presents as free neutrons. Typical phenomena are nuclear fission or nuclear fusion causing the release of free neutrons, which then react with nuclei of other atoms to form new isotopes which, in turn, may trigger further neutron radiation. Free neutrons are unstable, decaying into a proton, an electron, plus an anti-electron neutron-neutron with a mean lifetime of 887 seconds about 14 minutes, 47 seconds.


you know, pre-proposal telecoms for the world's 2021 price-rate sciences call, because we're doing, using, you know, for earth sciences at least, a pretty new concept with a dual anonymous peer review. And I think personally, there's no downside to it. I think it's moving the right direction. But I also understand there's some apprehension in the community for doing it, you know, going that way.  Emails, or some specific questions, etc. So, you know, that's why we're having these two pre-proposal telecoms to explain a little more. We're coming from how it's implemented and then, you know, answer, hopefully, any questions you have. For us, it's, you know, it's new as well. So, you can pick what's the next slide. I'm going to do this. You know, like with other NASA town halls, you can anonymously post questions on a website, which is the latest given here at the top. So, you can, you know, support a question, etc. or upload an existing question. It's very user-friendly and you would see how this is working. There's also a Q&A window on websites that you can use if you have other questions. I cannot see the chat or the Q&A window, but Caitlyn will be monitoring it and, you know, it suggests we just, you know, go through and then we'll answer maybe questions. At the end, if there's a question, Caitlyn, where you feel you should answer that right now, just interrupt me anytime and I will, what? Sure. Stop my presentation and just, you know, we can talk about it. So, I think you're all automatically muted. So, and, you know, because it's, you know, anonymous, etc., you know, proposals, but so you use the chat, use the question answer or use the URL that's on the screen right now to post any questions you want to have. So, as I said many times when I, you know, started this job as a program manager for CRIO, I wanted to have, you know, regular calls and for the CRIO third program, science program.  And then we go from there. And then I have a second call, a smaller call, which is this call in August 2021, where I'm trying to address a very specific topic in this case, it is, you know, the stability of the ice salves, of green and an octetar, which is smaller call. And the idea is that scientists, the eyes selected through this call will actually, you know, work together to achieve something, you know, that is tangible, something where we feel we may really progress in understanding in this case the stability of ice salves because you talk to 10 scientists who are doing ice salves science, and you get 10 answers what the most important process is.  So that's the idea of this call in general. And I don't want to talk much about this, the call specifically, but, you know, we can talk about it in any specific questions to the con. This three proposal, tell the con is more really for, you know, to understand the double anonymous peer review, where as I said in the beginning, you know, there's a certain nervousness and a sense in the community for going that long. So we will talk a little bit of, you know, which programs are converted to do an anonymous peer review. We will talk about the motivation, what it means specifically, and then, you know, give you some tips and tricks how to make a proposal compliant, which I think personally is not as complicated as it may sound in the beginning. So these programs are converted to the app.  This has been establishing an astrophysics for years and very successful. And you can see in astrophysics, we are 10 plus programs who are using, you know, the dual anonymous peer review to evaluate their comps, they have their proposals. Similarly for planetary, they are five this year. So Earth Sciences, we have one call last year, the USPI program, led by Richard Eggman, and I participated in that panel. But here's just the second panel in the Earth Sciences for a second call in Earth Sciences who's doing double anonymous peer review. Other divisions are much, you know, much ahead of us. So what's the motivation behind it? You know, the goal really is to do anonymous peer review, is to level the playing field for everyone. You know, we want to create a change in the ten of the discussions away from the individuals on the proposing team and move towards that purely talk about science. And it's not a dual, you know, it's not a civil bullet, it's not about all the problems, but it's a step towards it. And I have to say, like, in these panelists, I, you know, ran participated co-led in the last, you know, almost two years from now. I don't know if it was 28 or 10 or so. There's always this problem. People, you know, there's not always this problem. People just cannot really say, you know, they cannot really separate person from proposal. And sometimes, you know, panelists are struggling with it. And basically, also, every panel I, you know, I led, I had to step up at one point or speak up at one point when panel members said, well, you know, this is not very well articulated in this proposal, but I know the proposer, and, you know, he or she will certainly deliver. And, you know, then I always have to step in and say, hey, you need to evaluate the proposal because otherwise, in the military or scientists, you know, wouldn't have a chance that their proposals needed to be so much better, so much more perfect because they wouldn't get away with, you know, their reputation, their proposal. So it's really, you know, leveling the field, focusing on the science and the proposal. So at panels, according to bias, BDO, to make people aware of bias, he said we all have, but it's difficult to completely interrupt biases through training alone. So, you know, the staffer process, though, does not remove the need for structural changes in order to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion. But I think it's a useful step towards that goal.  You know, there's this article from Business Insider, you know, in 1970, the top five orchestras in the U.S. and fewer than 5% women. And then auditions were made blind and that number increased dramatically. And that with the most famous orchestra in Germany, they did the same thing. They changed, it was all men, they changed to blind auditions and, you know, the ratios changed tremendously and so far. And, you know, the reason why astrophysics is so much ahead of us in a way is because they saw when they looked at proposals for the Hubble Telescope Program that the success rate of female scientists was throughout the years lower than the success rate of their male colleagues. And they went to double anonymous peer review and that number changed. It got more even. I mean, immediately the numbers changed. So, you know, we all try to be as unbiased as we can, but, you know, there is a bias that is very hard to overcome.  So, this is not my slide, but this is like, you know, showing this slide because this is something that is coming from, you know, Thomas Zubu from the science mission directorate's level. Thomas talks about this all the time. He's very committed to it and dual anonymous peer review is there to stay and I think it's just going to be an experiment. And the reason is because NASA science mission directorate strongly committed to ensuring that a leap of proposals is performed in an equitable and fair manner and to this end, motivated by the successful study conducted for the Hubble Space Telescope, as I said, S&D is adopting S&D is adopting the dual anonymous peer review for numerous program programs. So, in the system, not only are the proposals unaware of the identity of the members of the review panel, but also the reviewers don't have explicit knowledge of the identities of the opposing team during the scientific evaluation of the proposal. So, what is this process exactly? So, this is the first sentence assessed, a repetition of the previous sentence. The panel does not the identity of the proposal. And the primary intent of the dual anonymous peer review is to eliminate the team as a topic during the scientific evaluation of the proposal. And you talk about the science. And we talk about it later. It's not always completely possible to not have an inkling who the proposal may be, but it's still, and that's what experience has shown is the focus is way more on the science than on the proposal, you know, compared to the dual anonymous peer review process. So, it's not the process itself we talk about this detail as well. You know, it's not completely by proposal submit proposal, which is pretty much the end of proposal, which is anonymized, and we talk about this. And then there's not an anonymized part, expertise resource document that talks about team qualifications, teams, the teams prior experience, etc. The list shows a list there, and but the merit of the proposal is assessed anonymously and will be determined separately from the non-anonymized qualifications of the team. But nevertheless, the qualifications, the track record and access to unique facility will form part of the evaluation. So, how do we make our how do you make your proposals, I should say, you know, compliant? How do you make it? How do you anonymize your proposals? So, I'll give you an example in a minute.  You do not claim past ownership saying my previously or our analysis shown etc. You just, you know, make it more person and say prior analysis has shown. But you can do say we propose because you are the team and you do propose something. It may occasionally be important, that's kind of important, to cite exclusive access to data sets non-public software, unpublished data or findings that have not yet presented to public before, but are but are not, you know, but are not sightable. Each of these may reveal a strong implies investing data sets of proposal and these instances propose of, you know, must use language such as obtained in private communication or from private communication when restoring to such potentially identifying board. And, you know, we call that the goal of the dapper is to shift the tenor of the discussion not to make it absolutely possible to get the team members. Another thing is institutional access to unique resources. So another common situation that cures in proposals is when the team member has institutional access to the facilities, you know, for example, an observatory or a laboratory are required to accomplish the proposal. And an anonymized proposal does not prohibit stating this fact in the scientific, technical management section of the proposal. However, the proposal must be written in a way that does not identify the team member. And here's an example. The team has access to telescope time of the WM Tech Observatory which Bill and Adler have said along. Note that in the situation NASA recommended to team provides detailed reporting information if needed to validate the claim in the expertise and resources document that is not anonymized. So we can expand on that access to the data said or to the lab or whatever. So here's an example and I think this is quite a good example because I feel it's easier than a, you know, initial, it may initially sound to make a proposal anonymized proposal and although I realize that devil is in the detail so this example let me go to the next page actually just better. You know, for example in the sentence starts in we conclude it in the proposal in this case we just say prior work concluded and the citation, there are still references in the proposal but instead of we just it out we have like other journals we just have a number there for the reference now people can still look it up and see who is the first author who wrote this paper but I think the idea is here that you know, the text is not full of Rogers et al 2014, Rogers et al 2019, Rogers et al 2018, Rogers et al 2020, it just says 12, 14, 16, 29 or something like this so I think it's more perception than an elimination of your own references and then, you know, as the queen highlighted text shows you know instead of writing if our model you know is correct, you write if the model is correct things like this and I think personally I was thinking about it more it seems you know if you just write your proposal as you normally would write your proposal and then go through the text that you know makes it anonymous shouldn't be hopefully I'm saying this so easily because I'm not going to write a proposal obviously but hopefully it's not you know as you know laborsome as you make here so how is the capability of the team to execute the investigation accounted for so in the expertise and resources document that is not anonymized it's a standard stuff in the way that you know is normally in your proposal list of team members description of expertise specific contributions from members you know you all write this in the management set management sets you know whatever you specifically call it specialized resources some of your approval effort you have by a standard paragraph sketches in the standard current employment support and then letters of resource support if applicable so much of these months of this information you know that you are used to providing you provide just like that just like you did in the past but just as you know as a separate document so there is in the inspires call there is some detailed guidance it's like a 5-6 page document guidelines for anonymous proposals and I think it's actually pretty well read it's pretty clear what you know what you should be doing you know what you know there are some examples there so there may be specific questions in the process as you write this as you write your proposal in that and if you if you still run if you still run into problems you know don't hesitate to send me and Kate any time you try our best to answer it and you know we may also prefer ask our experts here we have done this many times to solve a specific problem and then there is also a quick step tutorial as well as frequently asked questions in the link and maybe Kate you can just put it in the chat so people just click on it rather than having to write it down for the presentation so I will the proposal be it's a two part process now we will use the anonymized scientific proposal and have a normal panel and you know all the assessments of your proposal we waited just as you know between one poor or an excellent five and once all this is done as a panel summary so then we go look at the documents so we will give probably the top of the proposals the proposals that have a realistic chance of being funded we will provide the expertise and resources to the panel so that the panel then can evaluate the team and the resource capabilities to execute the proposal investigation the proposal itself will be evaluated just as any proposal in the past will be evaluated assessed based upon scientific merit to the solicitation program as I say we will talk about proposals it's really the solicitation that is well it needs to be relevant to and then cost we will have a budget narrative which is anonymized still in your your core part of the proposal with regard to expertise and qualification the the panel will look at the second part of the non-anonymized part of the proposal and will then evaluate whether the team is uniquely qualified qualified or non-qualified to carry out the work and that seems to make real sense and what I heard is that it's basically impossible to write if you're not qualified to write the great proposal some people may be really good at it but I think it hasn't happened yet and so most people especially those in the top in the top third are all qualified to do the work and some may be you know some may be uniquely qualified so success metrics so far that's taken to look into our last calls the two ISA2 calls the cryo call and to look at the success rate there I mean it's actually doing pretty good in cryo for the studies with ISA2 the oldest 2019 one the success rate for male PIs was 20% the success rate of female PIs was 32% for example the success rate for male PIs was 24% 24.6% and 17% for females and then for the reasons second ISA2 call the success rate for male PIs was 35% for females was 57% so our numbers are very good but I also want to say you know what we track is right now female male we started to track early career which is hard to have for we do not track race it's something that has come up before quite a bit and it's something that with the anonymous period we will address as well and race is harder to track because it's more guessing by the name of the PI so while cryo is doing in terms of gender biases this is the astrophysics data analysis the astrophysics data analysis program results so in 2018 there are many programs to solve it's like 10 programs it's not only one panel it's many panels before in 2018 the number of female PIs was 26% so there's a number of selected or it's the number of female PIs that are in the top 2 who are in the top 3 category where it's just 15% or 20% it's way below their submission ratio when they implied the dual anonymous period in 2020 when they used this dual anonymous period process in 2020 it I think it's very impressive even though the number of proposals with female PIs was 30% and the top the number of female PIs in the top rate of proposals was 30% as well so it's kind of surprisingly clear an adjustment now as people are using the double anonymous period view also they look at the view as what do the panel members think does it work does it not work and I think it's roughly a thousand numbers or something or maybe it was a thousand proposals I forget I have to be careful not what I'm saying but it's because other disciplines have been using it for quite a while those are statistically it's not small number statistics and you can see that most people the vast majority of people believe that the dual anonymous period procedure improve the overall quality of the period people really thought you know the focus of the discussions is so much more on the science and on the processing most people you know strongly agree with the majority of proposals on my panel that prepared in accordance with the guidelines so it doesn't seem it's a writing proposals that are anonymous you know people did it very successful that's pretty much what it says so out of a thousand proposals I think that's pretty number five only three proposals had really bad violations of the anonymization guidelines and those proposals were trying to work with you you know reviewed and yeah so some common minor proposals that they saw is there are such good sentences in there where the P.I. as a proposal changed the ownership of passports the P.I. has established a method there are some PDF I'm not really sure how this would work but everything is in one PDF for our proposals that would reveal the name of the P.I. some people recycle old proposal text and then I'm not being careful of anonymizing it and sometimes names still appear here and there maybe in the budget narrative maybe in some budget table or you know as the P.I. says you provide the origin of the travel for your travel budget so which also reveals your identity yeah that's too quick we're not we're not to understand that dual anonymous peer who presents a major shift in the evaluation of proposals and as such occasional slips inviting anonymous proposals and now the results are right to return proposals you know you know anonymization is really ignored but you know as I said it happens very very you know and then NASA further acknowledges acknowledges that some proposed work may be so specialized despite attempts to anonymize proposal the identities as a principal investment entity members are really discernible but I think it's very true for I can easily see this happening in a community as a small as a cryo community where people have those specialized expertise etc but as long as the guidelines are followed by the proposals and it's all I think it's all good and I think because we are a small community you know you know going this way will actually help because we know each other and pretty much everyone knows everyone after a while and in this you know doing this anonymous peer review we as I said we will focus the discussion on the sounds because many people and whether we want to have an opinion of a fellow scientist whether he or she does great work or good work you know not too great work and because we know each other and we do have opinions on people's you know people's work and as I said we'll help a lot also I think early career scientists do not have the name recognition with them when they write their proposals they don't get away with I should say you know sloppy proposals that you know some established scientists may get away with so I think personally I think there's no harm at all in doing this and you know if we cry or bearhand this you know making you know proposals more equitable I think it's a good thing to do and we are considered a progressive cryo progressive discipline that is you know sometimes you know ahead of the game you know I think it's a good thing I think it's a win-win for everyone you know we're good with gender it looks like at least from the statistics but we have also could have also biases with regard to institution biases with regard to race stages etc so that's really all I had in the slides so we can have half an hour so if you need to talk about questions concerns, opinions you have to hear your opinions you know I'm serving you I just want to do the right thing let's see my biggest you know community as a whole yeah Caitlin maybe I'll stop with my presentation if we get out of it yeah great thanks Torsen so there were a handful of kind of different questions both in the QA in the Webex and then in the online town hall tracker about proposals being precluded from review if minor mistakes are made and I think the answer to that is minor mistakes are going to happen especially because this is the first time that the cryospheric sciences community has done this so actually maybe a question that you could answer proposals won't be returned for minor violations right those will just go through and will we have the opportunity to kind of scrub those before they go to a panel for review and you are muted that was all the time yeah don't sweat it if you put in reasonable effort to minimize the proposal it's all good I mean I realize it because you know lots of people in our community have specialized experience yeah so I think I wouldn't worry too much about it the top rated question on the town hall is are conflicts of interest still considered when you review a signed review so that's a good one that's a good one so technically there shouldn't be conflicts of interest because you wouldn't know who the proposals are sometimes you know the figures, the layout, the fund so well that you know that a panel member knows how does that person and I would talk to the panel members after we've done we clearly know who that proposal is coming from you know let us let us know what we do in reassignment and yeah that's what we're planning on doing that's a tap on it and there will be those cases because I've seen proposals where I immediately know who the proposal is so we will do the reassignments and of course knows alright the next one in our proposals how do we refer to COIs and also unfunded collaborators by number rather than name I see what you're saying so do you want to call it COIA, COIB, COIC I think yeah that's what the PDF document that SMB put out kind of outlines for folks and then in that non-anonymized document that's where the summary of work kind of impending funding that's where all of those things are kind of broken down anyway so the the only part that's really anonymized is the discussion of what science is going to be performed so yeah you can do like that all you just use a T but if you go into specific roles totally so I think this is a good question assume project managers still see the names of the proposals how does this approach help remove bias at all levels including at program management not just at the viewer panel level so that's a very fair point you know I'm in my approach as a program manager I'm very very much you know following the evaluation of the panel the ranking of the panel I'm pretty much going down top to bottom maybe you know there's a small gray zone where you need you know to be a brilliant actor versus an actor or something like this I should say maybe for this one but overall I you know follow the panel so that she's going strong but also once the panelists done with their ranking and evaluations Caitlin and I we have to present to a steering committee and where we have to justify our selections and if it's you know straight down you know start at the top and go down until you run out of money you know then it's really easy if you start to skip you've got to have a really good reason why you know programmatic reason you know to to skip a proposal it's a good point you know I think I handful these questions were answered in that presentation this is an interesting one how will international collaborators writing that supporting whether anonymously or anonymously be handled so putting a lot of that could be an anonymized part so that could be just normal just you know the international collaborator can cite this person you know a provider or whatever and you can also anonymously say you know if it's part of the proposal that something will be provided by say international institution space agency whatever then you can say that and you can justify it or you know later or not justify it but you know you know prove it later if you will with you know anonymized that our support from international collaborator does this make sense though I was just traveling I think it's okay so yeah it would be part of that not enough expertise and research portion of the proposal um actually yes someone just submitted this question um so this since this is essentially a DEI action how will we ensure that the selected TI is included after they are funded so that's um I love that question because that's it's a tricky one and and that's to the community that's on the community to to do this and you know this early career event with AGU last last week organized and that crack that similar question came out and this is really something on the community and I remember well let me get started because I've read this system the other week with somebody high up and I said and when crisis and many people many of you know many of you know that crisis is you know the KU center for the center of IHC you know the science and technology center funded during this 10 year project they also partnered with some minority universities and so there was a waste work this was way before my time is like you know 7 years, 8 years ago so it's a waste meeting then there were you know a bunch of you know like students out of you know technically came to this waste workshop and this person in this app told him that he said he observed that yes there are like you know students at Wains but in the evenings it was total separation and it's just and it's something that is you know on us community to actively address and make that and be more conscious about I think you know when on purpose I think you know way more conscious by now than you know but I'm saying this easily but I think it's an asset community I like the point I like the point and then Torsten there are a couple of questions I guess because it wasn't on the list of the documents that were in the expertise and resources, non-anonymized document so when are budget, budget justification and current pending support documents introduced into the Ruby process and I would assume that yes those would accompany the non-anonymous documents the budget and budget justification portions of the proposal what about it where are those introduced are those accompanying the non-anonymous documents so the budget narrative and you know the overview will be part of the anonymous part where you know where we see you know the money the funding is you know it's not in the proposal any more anyhow so but there is a table you know with cars that has this work effort whether it be I you know seeking 0.5 FTEs or you know 6 months because this much support for Saturday and then travel and etc that will all be you know anonymously in the body of the proposal otherwise costs could not be evaluated the other questions were addressed in the in the presentation I made sure to send the PDF link that Torsten referenced earlier that has the more detailed data proposal submission guidelines in the chat it was also in the email announcement that got sent out about this town hall see another question just popped up this is kind of another good one after conducting a proposal cycle under this emerging do you plan to evaluate whether this approach is achieving its intended objectives if yes how would that evaluation be conducted so it's a good one and I think we'll do the statistics just as we started the statistics on other panels and other calls and we will see how it goes we will do statistics on we try to do the statistics on you know getting as easy you know but you know why is this more difficult than the career statistics but you know a single call is you know as you all know it's very low number statistics so it's going to be a little tricky in a way just from one call to say hey super success or not I will talk as I do with every panel talk with the panel afterwards what they think how it works but I will also see I think I want to have a post selection of proposal for the telecom with you all again because I'm curious to hear what you think and how the proposal went because I would be curious about that as well so we will do the statistics big picture the statistics on our panel will forward into the statistics of other panels and then we will see whether it was a success bigger picture or not and maybe other science disciplines will probably see do panelists have an obligation to decline review of a proposal if they can guess who the PI and the CoIs are even if they haven't personally worked with them so we can all guess right so and you know we may have an ink in here and there and you know but people don't know so I think I think it should be you feel it's probably what you don't know and so we would still do you know evaluation of the proposal we will talk with the panel as well but luckily we're evaluating the proposal so I think it's the less of a problem than it may sound that makes sense because the conversation steered away from the PI from the proposal and it's more just on to the science how can mistakes in like egregious identification criteria by the reviewers being mitigated so I think this question is a little bit interesting word so if a proposal cites a certain author many times and the reviewers assume that the cited author is the PI while it's not so we shouldn't assume you just evaluate a proposal while it could very well be larger set out or larger as an example but you wouldn't know and I think you know you may personally guess etc but the discussion would be more on the proposal than on guessing who's the proposaler you just let it go, you don't know you have an inkling maybe is that the PI in the bigger picture you will still discuss the scientific narrative of the proposal are there efforts to diversify channel participation so that's a good one and that's we are working very actively on any other you know my parents have agenda balance you know the career stage balance because that's something also that's very important you know from a senior scientist to post up you want to have that on the panel racial is more difficult because I'm thinking about it but we in cryo we are not racially diverse communities and we have lots of ways to go there ways to go there and we are thinking of ways to actually include this and we will see what will come out in the next few years because it's not a switch you can do and sustain for them at some minority or historically black college established but with regard to gender and career stage we are definitely very aware of that so we only have a few minutes left so for NOIs do those need to be submitted with dapper guidelines in mind as well that's a good question no don't sweat it NOIs are just for us for the people who see them it's taking myself and for us it helps a lot to see how many proposals can we expect on what topics so that way we can start thinking about how many panels do we need how big of a panel do we need what expertise do we need from the panel or on the panel so do those NOIs go nowhere other than to me and my friends so don't worry about it and then another kind of philosophical question are statistics enough to evaluate whether or not this new approach works wouldn't the determining criteria be whether all proposals were made truly anonymous to all panelists so without even I guess the expertise and research non-anonymized documents at the end for the top rated proposals so the one panel I was on as I said earlier pretty much everyone was qualified so it makes second quality papers that you think less important maybe less important but you can also be uniquely qualified so that be anonymized as well I think I mean expertise is certainly something that is something that is positive or can be positive on a proposal to think about it an interesting question I think all the other ones have been addressed what if the community doesn't want this so that's a question so but it's if you really talk to me and I'm willing to listen and to make this proud because as I said I'm serving the community if the community does not want to do it but that means all of the community I think honestly I don't see it down side too I really don't because you write proposals you write great proposals and if you are specialized in something you know and that's your feel you know people know but then you just simply write the best proposals almost automatically you are the expert in that field and I still I do not see it down side too I only see proposals about it because you know as I said level to playing field it's all about you know it's all about the science and you avoid some many of the biases that you just naturally have and that come out of it and you know when I was editor for T-dive you know there was clearly a racial bias you know you can out the tone of it again if I try to meet it with you as for a paper submitted by you know Asian Sciences that you just spit it out it was very very difficult to get through yours and I thought about it then this is not you know I think I don't see any downside for you know I think it for questions outside of the content that was presented I don't know if you're also looking at the list of town hall questions first yeah I think there's a question how do we show preliminary results done for the proposal I think that there was an example kind of shown how to do that citing personal communications or something like that what are the slides available we can make the slides available we're also recording this presentation we'll be recording the presentation that we gave in a couple of weeks as well so yeah all this information will be will be available to folks afterwards how do we do this paper do you want I'm not sure I imagine the WebEx recording we can probably ask for that to be posted on the solicitation I'm not sure about the slides though we can we'll see how we can send out we'll see we can send us an email to send it to you and we know we can do that as well if you don't find out a good way I'll send it to you that's a good idea do you have anything else you want to add here at the end for us one thing I really appreciate you working with me on this for me it's the first time I know that some people are nervous and apprehensive as I said you know I'm a little apprehensive as well but I think it's a good plan I think it's the right thing to do to increase fairness in sciences and we will avoid racism that we receive about scientific neocotism we will receive about when we selected the ISAP-13 we will be almost the whole we selected the question came up how much may work with this this way people really like better proposals because they have more insight into ISAP-2 and these these suspicions if we put it this way the biases just won't be taken away I think it's a good plan so thank you for working with me I really appreciate it I'm because I know we have a really great community so I assume that people will actually embrace that trying to prepare our plans to set any philosophical yeah if you have any concerns we are there for you and we know about us we will respond that's a good plan yeah like NOIs are due tomorrow but proposals aren't due until the very end of July so you have plenty of time to ask questions if there's anything that we didn't get to today that you're still unsure or uncertain about please don't hesitate to reach out if you have any more questions or concerns alright thanks everyone I wish I could see you in a way goodbye I know thanks for joining us today everyone