[00:00.000 --> 00:14.160]  Okay, so basically we had this extra slot of time in our physical session.
[00:14.160 --> 00:22.640]  Actually, we want to use that time to engage discussion with you, the audience, about this
[00:22.640 --> 00:27.760]  open research track here at FOSDEM.
[00:27.760 --> 00:33.040]  We are opening the stage for basically questions and discussions.
[00:33.040 --> 00:43.800]  Just wanted to very briefly say a few words about how we ended up creating this space.
[00:43.800 --> 00:51.960]  So basically, we've been with a few colleagues at Sains-Paul-Paris, for instance, doing a
[00:51.960 --> 00:59.800]  few conferences here at FOSDEM in other dev rooms, using this FOSDEM conference as a venue
[00:59.800 --> 01:05.080]  to actually talk about technical realizations we were doing in the lab.
[01:05.080 --> 01:11.800]  And it was not so, it was a very good opportunity for us because it's not easy to do a scientific
[01:11.800 --> 01:18.320]  publication about technical things, more specifically into the social sciences.
[01:18.320 --> 01:25.600]  So after a few years of doing that, we thought that actually we could try to go a step further
[01:25.600 --> 01:34.480]  on this by organizing this track which is definitely about open source software and research.
[01:34.480 --> 01:40.440]  And so we had, as you've seen, we understand research with a very broad way.
[01:40.440 --> 01:47.360]  Any kind of inquiry is, we think, interesting to discuss because the chair, a journalist
[01:47.360 --> 01:53.680]  investigator, or we had an open factor, for instance, or a social scientist, or a natural
[01:53.680 --> 02:01.240]  science scientist, all share kind of the same engagement with data and about inquiry.
[02:01.240 --> 02:08.720]  So we created this room four years ago, actually at the time we were merged with another initiative
[02:08.720 --> 02:18.760]  from two people from neuroscience, and it was nice also to have these different disciplines.
[02:18.760 --> 02:25.680]  Of course, then the COVID came, so we succeeded into keeping the room online.
[02:25.680 --> 02:30.880]  And now, so we have folks, a crew of five, six people.
[02:30.880 --> 02:40.080]  We have two people who are online, Yo Yehudi and Celia Gruzon Daniel, who will actually
[02:40.080 --> 02:48.680]  monitor from their home the online session, which will start in 20 minutes.
[02:48.680 --> 02:54.520]  And basically we are a bunch of people working in academia, or not, or in the Open Knowledge
[02:54.520 --> 03:00.000]  Foundation, and I am no more in academia myself.
[03:00.000 --> 03:07.920]  And so the first thing I would like to say is like volunteers to help us out organizing
[03:07.920 --> 03:11.920]  this space are more than welcome.
[03:11.920 --> 03:18.600]  Basically the work of this starts in the autumn where we submit a proposal to force them to
[03:18.600 --> 03:20.320]  organize this room again.
[03:20.320 --> 03:24.080]  So each year we do that, we wait for the answer, and once we have it, we have to do a call
[03:24.080 --> 03:31.320]  of proposal for something very, very classic about organizing a conference.
[03:31.320 --> 03:37.200]  So reviewing papers, actually getting the papers in, so we actually contact people for
[03:37.200 --> 03:41.440]  asking them to come to our conference.
[03:41.440 --> 03:46.120]  And then as you've seen what we've been doing today, mining the door, putting signs on people
[03:46.120 --> 03:50.560]  and that kind of stuff, which is fun.
[03:50.560 --> 03:56.440]  And yeah, so I will finish with that, and maybe some other people won't say other things.
[03:56.440 --> 04:07.200]  I will finish this with one thing, it's important for us to try to augment diversity of our group.
[04:07.200 --> 04:13.680]  Gender but also disciplines, we like to open up as much more, well as much discipline as
[04:13.680 --> 04:14.680]  we can.
[04:14.680 --> 04:15.680]  So yeah.
[04:15.680 --> 04:24.560]  Sorry, less diversity, so there is a question about, yes, yes, also less French people.
[04:24.560 --> 04:27.960]  We tried that, we succeeded a little bit, but not that much.
[04:27.960 --> 04:28.960]  So yes, please.
[04:28.960 --> 04:29.960]  Matthew.
[04:29.960 --> 04:37.960]  Yeah, I just wanted to say a few things, but basically the reason we need you is also
[04:37.960 --> 04:41.880]  to increase this diversity in the papers submitted.
[04:41.880 --> 04:46.920]  Because for instance, if you look at the gender balance, the committee is basically gender
[04:46.920 --> 04:53.240]  balanced, but the submissions are completely dominated by males.
[04:53.240 --> 05:02.640]  And also the deaf room in the beginning had one leg firmly into the hard sciences, but
[05:02.640 --> 05:07.000]  then we've kind of drifted towards the social sciences, and it's not just us, it's also
[05:07.000 --> 05:08.000]  the demand.
[05:08.000 --> 05:14.640]  So, you know, we try to promote something, but it's kind of an equity balance game to
[05:14.640 --> 05:20.560]  try to have this variety in the proposals in the first place, because of course we cannot,
[05:20.560 --> 05:24.840]  if we don't have any proposition, for instance in hard science, we are not going to have
[05:24.840 --> 05:25.840]  any.
[05:25.840 --> 05:32.480]  So the audience, which is like, when if you submit papers or if you come into the committee
[05:32.480 --> 05:37.880]  and then become a bridge to contact other people to submit papers, that's how we can
[05:37.880 --> 05:42.200]  kind of ensure that it remains diverse.
[05:42.200 --> 05:49.120]  It's not a lot of work to participate, also because we are many and we are probably going
[05:49.120 --> 05:55.600]  to get even more people, and it's not a problem to be many, because like the real job beyond
[05:55.600 --> 06:01.320]  managing the day is, as you said, to contact the people and then to review, but mostly
[06:01.320 --> 06:02.560]  to contact them.
[06:02.560 --> 06:08.880]  So please come in and join us about that, but we could also have this discussion about
[06:08.880 --> 06:13.400]  what the scope of that should be, because I think that the figure of the tool maker
[06:13.400 --> 06:17.400]  was kind of at the center of what we had in mind.
[06:17.400 --> 06:21.800]  But as we see, it's not just about tools, it can also be about infrastructure in ways
[06:21.800 --> 06:26.560]  that is not tool, like institutions, you know, I don't know, I'm thinking of the Journal
[06:26.560 --> 06:30.920]  of Open Source Software that we had a few years back, think that infrastructure is not
[06:30.920 --> 06:31.920]  just tools.
[06:31.920 --> 06:36.880]  But now it's clear, it's not just the tool makers, let's say the infrastructure maker,
[06:36.880 --> 06:42.120]  and what could it be, like, common and shape the profile of their room with us.
[06:42.120 --> 06:51.120]  Can I, just to emphasize what you said, can I just share my little experience from this?
[06:51.120 --> 06:52.120]  Go ahead, take the mic.
[06:52.120 --> 07:04.280]  But just to emphasize what Mathieu said, this was my first time I forced them and as I told
[07:04.280 --> 07:12.440]  you, I'm not a coder, so I was pretty scared about what I was going to say and share, etc.
[07:12.440 --> 07:21.440]  So please do it, because why I came here was to share knowledge, of course, but to retrieve
[07:21.440 --> 07:28.520]  some different experience from what I do every day and who the people are with whom I work
[07:28.520 --> 07:29.520]  every day.
[07:29.520 --> 07:34.320]  So thank you for this, and please submit papers.
[07:34.320 --> 07:35.320]  Yeah.
[07:35.320 --> 07:37.320]  Do you want the mic?
[07:37.320 --> 07:38.320]  Yeah, yeah.
[07:38.320 --> 07:51.480]  I think one challenge for the diversity aside of many other factors is there's also the
[07:51.480 --> 07:55.480]  implicit assumption that there's sort of a good way to use open source software.
[07:55.480 --> 08:01.920]  There were some talks, for example, that kind of, not in a bad way, but sort of said that
[08:01.920 --> 08:07.280]  R is kind of tricky because, like, I think it's sort of more dead mainstream and I understand
[08:07.280 --> 08:12.880]  that when I want to develop software, I would use it, but in statistics I use a lot of R,
[08:12.880 --> 08:18.880]  but I also use a lot of Excel for help, and then people are like, oh no, that's a bad
[08:18.880 --> 08:23.880]  tool, but a lot of people in their practice, particularly if they're not developers, would
[08:23.880 --> 08:29.080]  combine a lot of different tools, and I think if they get the vibe that, hey, we also use
[08:29.080 --> 08:35.560]  Excel, it's sort of a bad thing for their practice and people look at it strangely,
[08:35.560 --> 08:39.920]  or even if it's like LibreOffice, which at least is open source, but it's like not the
[08:39.920 --> 08:48.280]  death way, and I guess that vibe that people catch that would make also a lot of people
[08:48.280 --> 08:53.960]  that would be very interesting for this community to also see how, like, it's done in the real
[08:53.960 --> 09:02.120]  world in a very messy way, very often, makes them not like that, and if we could get to
[09:02.120 --> 09:07.640]  a place where this would be legit and people would be curious and interested in those
[09:07.640 --> 09:15.920]  non-perfect, chaotic, and not 100% open source ways, I think that would increase their versatility.
[09:15.920 --> 09:21.080]  So just for the stream, the idea that a challenge to diversity could be that there are good ways
[09:21.080 --> 09:27.480]  and bad ways to do open source, and I always say that I forgot the last part of your speech.
[09:27.480 --> 09:32.240]  The Excel LibreOffice part is important.
[09:32.240 --> 09:33.240]  He's going to come back later.
[09:33.240 --> 09:34.240]  I'm sorry.
[09:34.240 --> 09:35.240]  I'm so tired.
[09:35.240 --> 09:36.240]  It was for the stream.
[09:36.240 --> 09:42.520]  Yeah, that's what the point was, but I mean, you were very right that it's about us to
[09:42.520 --> 09:43.520]  cultivate that.
[09:43.520 --> 09:45.840]  Yeah, it comes back to me now.
[09:45.840 --> 09:50.760]  It's really important to show how it's being done in the real world.
[09:50.760 --> 09:55.160]  That's something that I think we all appreciate very much about the first-dimensional.
[09:55.160 --> 09:59.400]  You don't see some people talking from a distance about how it's supposed to be.
[09:59.400 --> 10:04.640]  You have real people who are from actually doing stuff, which also means that sometimes
[10:04.640 --> 10:08.080]  they are not really good at communicating, and that's something that I really appreciate
[10:08.080 --> 10:10.840]  because you hear the voices.
[10:10.840 --> 10:16.160]  I think for them it's somehow a safe space for people who are not primarily good at communicating
[10:16.160 --> 10:21.000]  contrary to academics, for instance, but who are really doing the stuff, and we can
[10:21.000 --> 10:27.720]  hear them, and we can identify to them and realize that anyone can get involved in open
[10:27.720 --> 10:29.840]  science and open source design.
[10:29.840 --> 10:31.800]  We want very much to keep cultivating that.
[10:31.800 --> 10:36.480]  That's why also we try to have a blend of people showing off the tools they've made,
[10:36.480 --> 10:38.520]  but also people having a different kind of talk.
[10:38.520 --> 10:54.560]  I don't know what the right balance is, but we want to preserve this voice.
[10:54.560 --> 11:09.240]  I was a researcher at some point during my PhD, I was part of a training workshop led
[11:09.240 --> 11:16.240]  by PhD students involved in training ourselves with best practices in mind and also to have
[11:16.240 --> 11:22.600]  a grassroots initiative, which I think is kind of like a good example of what worked
[11:22.600 --> 11:31.000]  in a particular field is this kind of like stories of what worked in a particular domain
[11:31.000 --> 11:35.640]  with that be a thing interesting for this dev room.
[11:35.640 --> 11:40.160]  So our stories that worked in a particular domain interesting for the dev room.
[11:40.160 --> 11:43.480]  Well for me I think it totally is.
[11:43.480 --> 11:48.840]  So the answer is yes, and I think we've somehow done that, but sometimes what it looks once
[11:48.840 --> 11:54.120]  it's in the slides and here looks different, but that is very much the case.
[11:54.120 --> 12:00.360]  I think we do not have a clear typology of the kind of talks we accept.
[12:00.360 --> 12:03.360]  One very clear kind is the tool talk.
[12:03.360 --> 12:06.920]  I've done something, I show you that to you.
[12:06.920 --> 12:10.320]  Another kind would be experiment feedback.
[12:10.320 --> 12:13.320]  So I'm not going to show my tool, but for instance I have engaged with that open source
[12:13.320 --> 12:18.080]  stack and I've met issues, I'm going to talk about that.
[12:18.080 --> 12:20.080]  This is a little bit of that kind somehow.
[12:20.080 --> 12:29.080]  Do you think it will be pertinent to add more track dedicated to very short talks like lightning
[12:29.080 --> 12:34.400]  talks, but dedicated to more?
[12:34.400 --> 12:35.400]  Repeat the question.
[12:35.400 --> 12:42.800]  So a question like would it be a good idea to organize very short lightning talks about
[12:42.800 --> 12:44.680]  open research?
[12:44.680 --> 12:49.200]  So actually we try to do that a little bit, like the three last talks were lightnings,
[12:49.200 --> 12:54.800]  okay, lightnings 15 minutes, so it's not, but I think it's, yeah.
[12:54.800 --> 12:59.120]  So we try, actually so the format lightning or not depends on what, on the time we have
[12:59.120 --> 13:02.120]  and what the speaker wants.
[13:02.120 --> 13:04.120]  So it basically is a tool.
[13:04.120 --> 13:09.760]  If you don't know how it works, people propose if they want a lightning talk or a normal talk,
[13:09.760 --> 13:13.720]  and then so we can also ask them to expand or reduce.
[13:13.720 --> 13:16.600]  If we think it fits better, so we try to negotiate.
[13:16.600 --> 13:20.440]  But it's kind of unpredictable how many lightning talks we're going to have.
[13:20.440 --> 13:25.440]  So the proposals decide if there's enough for a track or not.
[13:25.440 --> 13:30.000]  From the two last questions, there is one thing that's very important that's emerging.
[13:30.000 --> 13:35.000]  So the form, the form of things should be in question.
[13:35.000 --> 13:42.800]  And there is a sort of standardization associated with a conference.
[13:42.800 --> 13:50.440]  And as we receive talk, we perceive diversity even in the form and our experiences, tools
[13:50.440 --> 13:55.360]  or maybe talk, we do have a classifications.
[13:55.360 --> 13:59.840]  But seeing things here, it's sort of standardized.
[13:59.840 --> 14:05.360]  And maybe we should work together, so you're in this with us, on the form of things, on
[14:05.360 --> 14:08.640]  maybe other forms of presentations.
[14:08.640 --> 14:10.800]  We're not that constrained by the first them.
[14:10.800 --> 14:17.960]  So that's one way we could work forward into.
[14:17.960 --> 14:20.400]  But there are many things we could do.
[14:20.400 --> 14:21.400]  And I am tired.
[14:21.400 --> 14:40.880]  I do have a remark, I am part of the geospatial community, and on the two sides of the space.
[14:40.880 --> 14:41.880]  And we have the same problems.
[14:41.880 --> 14:47.880]  We have lots of developers who want to speak of their new things and the new stuff they
[14:47.880 --> 14:54.880]  want to do, but we have a problem to have users who speak of old things, how they use
[14:54.880 --> 15:06.880]  a tool and get new spaces and it's very difficult, and it's pretty hard to keep in touch with
[15:06.880 --> 15:07.880]  it.
[15:07.880 --> 15:18.880]  So I have a colleague, I asked her to come and present her tool, and she said, I don't
[15:18.880 --> 15:19.880]  fit.
[15:19.880 --> 15:32.880]  I'm a developer, it's not the kind of meeting for me, so maybe we can speak a little bit
[15:32.880 --> 15:43.280]  and see if it's very open to everyone.
[15:43.280 --> 15:50.320]  So the comment was that Nicola says that in the geospatial, they have this issue of having
[15:50.320 --> 15:54.240]  users come because they don't feel welcome or they don't feel like they fit.
[15:54.240 --> 15:58.680]  So I want to give the mic to Maya, because Maya was first, before she got in the community
[15:58.680 --> 16:06.000]  for the room, she was presenting a talk here two years ago, I think, 2020, as a user.
[16:06.000 --> 16:08.120]  So now you're in.
[16:08.120 --> 16:12.200]  So what would you give as an advice to those guys?
[16:12.200 --> 16:16.000]  Don't be scared, they're really nice.
[16:16.000 --> 16:23.880]  I understand your colleague perfectly, especially coming from academia, which is also my case.
[16:23.880 --> 16:33.720]  Maya is extremely segmented or taught to fear each other deeply, and so it can be really
[16:33.720 --> 16:38.240]  scary to push those boundaries a little bit.
[16:38.240 --> 16:40.080]  It can also be very rewarding.
[16:40.080 --> 16:44.320]  So you said she did come in 2020, or she didn't come?
[16:44.320 --> 16:45.320]  Okay.
[16:45.320 --> 16:57.880]  Okay, so despite trying, there was no success yet.
[16:57.880 --> 17:04.000]  Maybe if you show them this replay, it will change everything.
[17:04.000 --> 17:12.920]  I've got a question for you, which is, so one of our ideas, our objective, this was also
[17:12.920 --> 17:17.280]  to bring folks from academia here at the first day, so that they can actually benefit from
[17:17.280 --> 17:19.600]  the other conference and all the day rooms.
[17:19.600 --> 17:25.360]  So here's my questions, like, do you consider seeing talks in other day rooms and this one
[17:25.360 --> 17:27.000]  here, yourselves?
[17:27.000 --> 17:29.200]  Can you raise your hand if you do?
[17:29.200 --> 17:30.200]  Yeah.
[17:30.200 --> 17:31.200]  It's good?
[17:31.200 --> 17:32.200]  Yes.
[17:32.200 --> 17:33.200]  Yeah.
[17:33.200 --> 17:35.200]  Yeah, it's difficult to see.
[17:35.200 --> 17:48.840]  All the talks that we want to see, even though the offer is large.
[17:48.840 --> 17:54.560]  But on conversely, who is here now, but who didn't come to the FOSDEM specifically for
[17:54.560 --> 17:55.560]  that?
[17:55.560 --> 17:56.560]  Okay.
[17:56.560 --> 17:57.560]  Raise your hands.
[17:57.560 --> 17:59.560]  So it works also the other way around.
[17:59.560 --> 18:00.560]  Good.
[18:00.560 --> 18:01.560]  Thank you.
[18:01.560 --> 18:06.560]  Is it time?
[18:06.560 --> 18:08.040]  No, not yet.
[18:08.040 --> 18:13.800]  So we still have 10 minutes, and then we'll actually watch the stream here, if you want
[18:13.800 --> 18:14.800]  to stay.
[18:14.800 --> 18:15.800]  Quick question.
[18:15.800 --> 18:19.560]  What is the acceptance rate here?
[18:19.560 --> 18:20.560]  That's a very good question.
[18:20.560 --> 18:23.880]  So the question is, what is the acceptance rate?
[18:23.880 --> 18:25.040]  I don't know.
[18:25.040 --> 18:26.800]  We haven't calculated it, but I think...
[18:26.800 --> 18:39.120]  I would say that there is a part of the papers that are not good, I mean, they're out of focus
[18:39.120 --> 18:41.480]  for the day room.
[18:41.480 --> 18:44.840]  And what we can do, actually, we can re-route a paper to other day rooms, so it doesn't
[18:44.840 --> 18:45.840]  matter much.
[18:45.840 --> 18:50.600]  But also some people just submit to multiple day rooms for the same speech, right?
[18:50.600 --> 18:52.000]  And it's okay, right?
[18:52.000 --> 18:56.000]  The boundaries are not super open, but there are kind of buggy proposals.
[18:56.000 --> 19:00.560]  What we would consider not acceptable would be, is that something that is clearly for
[19:00.560 --> 19:03.360]  someone else, and we don't know why it's been submitted here, or something that has just
[19:03.360 --> 19:04.360]  a title?
[19:04.360 --> 19:08.160]  When that happens, we would kind of send an email, sometimes we don't even have an answer,
[19:08.160 --> 19:09.880]  we don't know what happens.
[19:09.880 --> 19:17.320]  So if you remove those, the ones that we actually refuse, I think is like one-third, one-quarter
[19:17.320 --> 19:19.480]  maybe, with not too much.
[19:19.480 --> 19:20.480]  So we are always...
[19:20.480 --> 19:22.080]  It's been always working for us.
[19:22.080 --> 19:27.760]  We need to have enough to fill the day if we want to have a full day, but not too much
[19:27.760 --> 19:29.880]  that we have to refuse a lot of good talks.
[19:29.880 --> 19:35.440]  But to be honest, we've been refusing good talks every year, just because there's not
[19:35.440 --> 19:38.200]  enough room.
[19:38.200 --> 19:41.680]  So basically, we decide about the balance when it's the case.
[19:41.680 --> 19:47.600]  So when we have too many or not enough tool talks, we will try to adjust this way.
[19:47.600 --> 19:54.280]  I can remember that one kind of talks that we tend to reject are talks about a tool that
[19:54.280 --> 20:00.280]  have been developed somewhere in research, which is very specific, in a very specific
[20:00.280 --> 20:06.120]  domain without any abstract, without any issues about what does the open source side of the
[20:06.120 --> 20:09.680]  thing actually change anything in the story.
[20:09.680 --> 20:15.200]  So having just a paper about a tool which is in research depends a lot on the quality
[20:15.200 --> 20:19.360]  of the abstract, but it's not enough in a way.
[20:19.360 --> 20:21.920]  Submitting is very...
[20:21.920 --> 20:25.960]  The abstract to submit is like a few paragraphs long, so it's really easy to submit.
[20:25.960 --> 20:26.960]  It's very easy to submit.
[20:26.960 --> 20:27.960]  Please do.
[20:27.960 --> 20:28.960]  Yes?
[20:28.960 --> 20:39.960]  I did try to improve the younger sexual legalization, but for disclosure, I was a first member of
[20:39.960 --> 20:40.960]  the Italian Catholic Student Association.
[20:40.960 --> 20:41.960]  Okay.
[20:41.960 --> 20:43.720]  It's a good idea.
[20:43.720 --> 20:50.880]  So the question is, have we tried PhD associations, a session of PhD students, to email them,
[20:50.880 --> 20:52.760]  to propose them to submit a talk?
[20:52.760 --> 20:53.760]  No, we haven't.
[20:53.760 --> 20:57.440]  No, we haven't, and we are not very good at communication.
[20:57.440 --> 20:59.760]  Well, I'm bad, but they are good.
[20:59.760 --> 21:00.760]  Yeah?
[21:00.760 --> 21:05.280]  Yeah, I have to say, as an academic, I feel, well, as an academic and a developer, I feel
[21:05.280 --> 21:10.560]  like there is a tendency for academic labs to have sort of a rotation of conferences
[21:10.560 --> 21:18.680]  that they can send out, and it typically is difficult to get added to that as a new conference,
[21:18.680 --> 21:22.880]  and especially if it's something that's sort of outside of the norm.
[21:22.880 --> 21:26.200]  And so it's something that I do think...
[21:26.200 --> 21:29.480]  I think most of the time that's not sort of intentional, it's just there's so much
[21:29.480 --> 21:32.040]  else going on and people don't really think about it.
[21:32.040 --> 21:36.320]  So I would second the suggestion of talking to PhD student associations and you're reaching
[21:36.320 --> 21:43.880]  out to universities, especially universities that might have asked those, to say, hey,
[21:43.880 --> 21:51.160]  this is an opportunity for interdisciplinary work, opportunity to talk to people who are
[21:51.160 --> 21:57.160]  more technical, if you're less technical, or people who are more in other disciplines,
[21:57.160 --> 22:02.880]  because that sort of stuff is in vogue right now as well.
[22:02.880 --> 22:12.320]  So I think that once you're on the radar, it's going to be easier to get people, it's
[22:12.320 --> 22:14.240]  just getting on the radar.
[22:14.240 --> 22:19.920]  So the comment was that actually it's not easy for labs members to actually add one
[22:19.920 --> 22:26.720]  more communication conference in the list of an already existing kind of standard publication
[22:26.720 --> 22:36.600]  venue and above all, when this venue like here is really not standard, academically speaking.
[22:36.600 --> 22:44.240]  But actually the interdisciplinarity of this room will be actually a good way to attract
[22:44.240 --> 22:52.760]  not only PhD students and to make it clear for academia what this space is basically.
[22:52.760 --> 23:16.920]  Okay, so that's a very good question, questions like who would in this room define him or
[23:16.920 --> 23:19.760]  herself as a UX designer?
[23:19.760 --> 23:23.040]  Can you raise your hand?
[23:23.040 --> 23:27.240]  There's one there.
[23:27.240 --> 23:30.240]  So not many, not many.
[23:30.240 --> 23:56.920]  We're doing research into how usable research and science is, they were trying to figure
[23:56.920 --> 24:00.080]  out usability and user design.
[24:00.080 --> 24:05.800]  So the comment was are you aware that actually there is an open design dev room and so the
[24:05.800 --> 24:09.200]  answer is yes, actually you will co-organize it.
[24:09.200 --> 24:13.200]  And actually this room is here tomorrow morning, I think.
[24:13.200 --> 24:16.000]  Afternoon, sorry.
[24:16.000 --> 24:22.360]  And my personal comment on this is that actually in my career and what I've done in my experience,
[24:22.360 --> 24:33.440]  UX is very common stone to go beyond the big, big issue of mixing qualitative and quantitative
[24:33.440 --> 24:38.880]  approach on data as my talk tried to explain.
[24:38.880 --> 24:46.440]  And that yes, we need designers and we have one here who talked about it and in our previous
[24:46.440 --> 24:52.160]  lab that was very important, the media lab is a place where they try to do this mix.
[24:52.160 --> 25:08.400]  We should try to not overlap, it's good this year, the years before and it's annoying I
[25:08.400 --> 25:11.360]  think we have kind of the same public or partially.
[25:11.360 --> 25:15.160]  So if we could, I don't know if we can do that, we should ask at least there or whatever.
[25:15.160 --> 25:17.160]  It's better if we can maintain it separate.
[25:17.160 --> 25:25.240]  Yeah, at the same time, yeah, we can do that, actually we could talk about what we do.
[25:25.240 --> 25:32.040]  Right, one last comment is like if you want after the online session, we can have drinks
[25:32.040 --> 25:40.600]  together in a place which is, tavernier, tavernier, tavernier, we are going to write
[25:40.600 --> 25:46.720]  that on the board, tavernier is close to here and I'm going to set up the stream here and
[25:46.720 --> 25:50.800]  so you can stay here and watch it with us if you want.
[25:50.800 --> 25:55.320]  So it will be on me, we are going to stream the video and the interaction if you want
[25:55.320 --> 25:59.800]  to ask questions to the speakers, you have to go through the chatroom on the first-day
[25:59.800 --> 26:00.800]  website.
[26:00.800 --> 26:16.800]  Thank you.