I think we need to mic.
Thanks for promoting me, but I'm not the CEO of the change.
No, I'm just the head of policy.
But I mean, maybe late.
Maybe it happened that nobody told me yet, but I don't think so.
We thought about the head of policy, open exchange.
Which is a German up and so softer maker.
We make stuff like that, got empowered in S.
So you possibly know some of our software.
And I'm here because I'm originally an engineer
that I mean already a long time ago,
became interested in this kind of political stuff.
And so I mean at a certain point of the career
moved to this policy realm.
And this is exactly the point where we are now.
So it happened almost by chance that it got involved
with this thing called the euro stack.
It was something that was launched by economists and
competition economists and business people from the public sector
and high ranking public sector officers.
We share the same problem as we have.
So they think we are colonized by big tech.
And we need to be independent as Europe for a number of reasons.
But they have their problems in the sense that they don't know
how to make the technology happen.
So they were looking for techies and asking them
how can we actually build this.
And so we did this lead to a sort of an opinion campaign
and a report that you can find online.
But the point is that we are at a very important moment
and this is why open-desk and this kind of model is so important.
Europe has been saying that we need technical independence
for a long time now.
And as been doing a lot of stuff,
I mean we've been doing a lot of regulation,
which is important, it's useful.
I think it should be enforced.
Actually, I'm actually worried that I hear stuff
to hear like MEPs and people saying we need less regulation
that we're actually one in a conference three days ago saying
maybe the problem why we cannot compete with the Americans
is that we have the GDPR.
We should abolish the GDPR because it's just bureaucracy.
No, this is not the point.
The point is that we need the regulation that we have been making.
We need to get it enforced even more strongly than it has been done
until now.
But then we also need to start building stuff.
And to build stuff, we need money, we need investment.
We need the investment that has an impact.
Europe is investing a lot of money in search projects.
How many commonly used the Internet products have come out
over the European search projects?
Zero, I think.
So the problem we have as Europe is to help to spend our money
to make something that people can actually use.
And so this is why we, as a company,
we are also partners in open-desk.
We provide part of our software, which they use for.
I mean, it's open.
They could use it without hardware.
The suite as well.
So the point is exactly how to make things happen.
And public procurement is the key.
Because public procurement is money that we, as taxpayers,
have to pay anyway.
Because the public office needs technical infrastructure.
And that now it has been spent for 30 years on Microsoft
and other big tech stuff, which has made us more and more dependent.
So if we can just direct even just as more part of that money
into open source software, making Europe,
we are creating independence, we are creating jobs,
we are creating the tech surviving that we need to keep our welfare
up and running and all these things.
And so this is why I'm interested, and this is now there.
The question for the panel.
First of all, well, I think you have different views coming from the political sphere
and maybe from a more practical sphere.
But it's this model that can work.
So how hard it is to extend this kind of idea to cover the other sectors
that we need.
I mean, I think open-desk and LaFeed America now focusing more on
like personal productivity, platforms software.
But this model may be that separate even can work for other things that we need.
I mean, like European sort of change in social media, whatever.
And maybe from the political sphere is, I mean, do you see the wheel
that European level to pursue this in practice and the attention to this problem?
Anyway, and then you can say whatever you want,
and then we will take questions.
So I'm finishing here.
Want to start?
Thank you.
Thank you for the question.
I would start with Eurostek is a buzzword.
And I think we have.
The microphone is for the live stream, the parent pages.
I'm sorry.
I hope the live stream can also hear us.
But yeah, I would try to speak a bit louder.
So Eurostek, first of all, it's just the name.
So we have to identify what does it mean.
So what do we really want to support?
And do we start with the hardware?
Where do we go?
Does it go until the application layer?
We really have to distinguish where and what do we want to support?
And here, I think it's quite remarkable because you asked about the political will.
We already have something called the chipsect.
And there, the allocation of money was a huge debate.
So there was money available in the frameworks and the funds.
However, they had to take money away from other things in order to support the chipsect.
And in order to support chips in Europe, or at least, you know,
also talking about recycling and other aspects that are not necessary now for the debate.
But if this money comes genuinely from a new source,
and they identified that this is for the competitiveness necessary,
I think that there is actually a possibility.
Secondly, I think what another quite remarkable thing is, already last year,
we had a conference on the Eurostek organized by the people that you offered the report with.
And it came like five different groups came together.
And from EPP, which is remarkable and until the left,
I think that this is already a very good sign.
And under the course that we have a need for this,
and that there is political interest and political willingness to make this a reality.
I can't look into the future, but I think that now,
the new paradigm is competitiveness.
And if we do not focus it around European solutions, we're going granular.
So I really think that we have to go, you just calling it Eurostek does not suffice.
I think we have to really identify what this infrastructure,
where is infrastructure needed, where do we already have a solution,
and where do we need to adapt it?
But then I think that there is actually a good chance for making this a reality.
Maybe our views are not that different.
I think what's really interesting and what we saw with also the cooperation
which we have with France right now is that it's really needed to get results and get starting.
I think with, especially if you have a European project,
it's, I don't like a planning phase of multiple years.
You have to wait, you have to do all sorts of reports and stuff like that,
whereas we saw if we want to have some cool results and we have a very highly motivated
joint team, we should get going.
At the same time, as we see right now, we have the Netherlands who joined us,
we will have maybe some more countries and we are willing to have more countries to join us.
At that point, we see that we need to be more mature.
We need to grow up in regards to how the project is structured,
but also in regards to how the funding is structured for that.
And we see that there is a need, a European need for these solutions,
and we are willing to be first mover, so to say,
and to share it in an open source kind of spirit with other countries.
But at the same time, we see that we need to have possibilities,
where on a European or on a broader European level,
we can actually work together and also provide,
so to say, joint services for all different member states.
It's really interesting because there are actually, there are ways not only big funding types,
but there are, there is this abbreviation, which is called an EDIC,
for example, it's some sort of a legal body, so to say,
where multiple countries join together and have a joint funding
from the European Commission, but also from their own states.
And these are all methods, which we can use.
But at the same time, for example, just us, we applied for a fund.
If we would wait for it to be granted to us, which we will hope will happen this year.
But by that time, we will already have six more challenges.
So, six more results within our tools, which is kind of,
that's where we are stuck, so to say.
But I think coming back to your question, these corporations are super useful
and are needed.
And I think that countries are more and more willing on a technical level,
ready to cooperate because we have the same issues we have.
Sometimes, same solutions or same tools, which we use.
And the more we talk about open source, the more we talk about sharing results,
so that not everybody has to start from the beginning.
And I think that kind of open source spirit, but also a co-authoring,
so to say, of technical results, is something that can be really useful
and can be seen also outside of the productivity workspace,
which is just for the public servants in the first place.
Okay, so we want to make these a conversation.
So, if anyone has questions or otherwise that we can continue,
but was there quite high?
Yeah.
Accelerate?
Yeah, maybe we will repeat it then.
Thank you.
Just as a really good technical solution or a software product,
documentation is always the thing which is sometimes lacking or moving behind.
I see some people who have the same struggle.
But with us onboarding Netherlands, right now,
we write down, and it's one part of our homework,
so to say, to make it easier.
We try to make it learning, or we try to write down learnings,
in regards to how to use the software,
but also how to join and create this process,
so that others can join us faster.
But at the same time, we see that we just had a chat with,
sort of say, all three nations.
Yesterday, and we saw that even paperwork,
which we are doing is sometimes slower than the deaf teams,
because the deaf teams already have all the systems up and running.
So we have a struggle, but we are going to,
it's one of the topics for the next 100 day challenges
is to talk more about the process itself.
Anyone else?
Other way.
Well, okay.
How will you guarantee the continuity of the development of open-desk or
what we can meet in the future?
Because it's great talking about all the open-desk projects
after the first generation of developers
they tend to, let's say, sort of down and eventually stop.
So the question was, how can we ensure that
the products are not going to die with users, so to say?
The answer is, I think, various ways that we try.
First, we work not only as an open source project,
but we have partners who have,
we had a huge European tender in regards to ensuring the way
that we can keep the development of open-desk for the upcoming years
and also keep the support.
So if you can't just use your example,
if you can't send emails,
and you are working in a prime minister's office or so,
you don't want to write down in a community forum somewhere
that my email isn't working,
but you want to have some sort of a phone,
which you can be polite to a support engineer
and ask him how to solve this issue.
So this is one.
The other one is actually through corporations.
I think the more countries and the more users we have,
the better it is.
People sometimes focus just on the public market,
but the public market is not the entire economics sphere,
which is out there.
So we will see how these tools,
how they will be able to be used,
also outside of the public institutions.
And I think all of this adds up to ensuring,
so to say, the longer life of these tools,
and we are vetting the tools not only on usability,
but also security and also some sort of financial stability
aspect of the product themselves.
Yeah, I mean, I can't think,
but I think it's important to clarify that,
open-desk is not the classic project in which
a public administration takes out a money,
pays developers, then the money ends, and they go away.
So the point is to establish a partnership between the public sector
so there are companies working on that on those products,
and they made a tender, so there was a possibility to,
and then there are people that are paid to continue developing
these projects, they're supporting them,
and so this is also the positive result for the market.
So creating feedback money into the open-source industry
to pay open source developers to continue to develop
and support these products.
So...
Yeah.
So I tried to paraphrase the question.
It's true, 2027 Horizon Europe is ending,
so this was the 2021 until 2027 was the scope of that project,
but there's more than just Horizon Europe,
I want to also mention that there's also digital to Europe program
and others.
Indeed, everyone who remembers the debate that we've had
on a rule of law and to green deal and everything
in the council, when we discussed the multi-annual financial framework,
knows that this is super political.
However, what I want to say as a positive side here is
competitiveness, and I will make it a bit,
you know, pretty please, please, please, in these things.
By Europe first, this will become a real deal.
So I think that there's an opportunity,
and what I also want to emphasize is that what you said,
we have to have the private sector involved too,
because this creates demand,
and then we can also ask for money from the European investment bank,
for instance.
It is not only the European,
that we have to ask for these funds,
but it also creating the demand around the infrastructure,
around the services.
And I think actually that there's a good chance
that this will be taken finally seriously
because when you compare the budgets,
whatever Horizon Europe has is,
I think, not even a fourth of what only Amazon's
research and development has as its edit disposal.
And this should worry us,
and this should also be a wake-up call.
This should have been a wake-up call five years ago.
However, we are doing now,
the necessary work, and therefore I'm actually cautiously optimistic,
as much as I can be.
So I have a good job for presenting that.
I was wondering, how do you think elements
that have with less you are,
but this will create a new energy.
Do you think so?
Please repeat the question.
Yes, the good.
So the question was,
how can we promote solutions such as open desk
in the European Parliament?
So what can we do in the Parliament as an institution
in order to promote such services?
Myself, I'm trying to get a solution
through my internal IT department.
That would allow me to use several apps
such as Signal Freema in one,
so basically an all-in-one messenger.
The constraints from my IT department
in terms of is the safe.
Does it create vulnerabilities for the infrastructure?
How much does it cost if we have a European,
you know, license, just for that, just for the Parliament?
This is ongoing since three years.
So since three years, I'm inefficient, ineffective,
because I have to use three different apps on my phone,
partly obviously if it was on my computer, it would be faster,
because of these questions, because of these considerations.
While at the same time, we use Microsoft Teams,
and Microsoft Outlook.
Exactly.
So I've just think that we have to put these things,
we have to be honest about this as well.
So obviously there are forces who want to change it,
but the administrative burden and the paper example
is just beautiful because it's so bizarre and real.
We have the same for procurement in the European Parliament.
There is some open source, there is some open source software deployed,
but it is invisible.
In order to make this a good project, a good practice,
example, that's what I said earlier.
We have to really go into what is the service,
what is the actual, where are we open source?
What is built on top of that open source?
Unfortunately, I think that there will be much more conferences
like this needed, and many more people, like me,
invited to these things in order to realize the necessity for this.
We may have, yeah.
What you need to use, let people know, and find the room is okay.
The room, we have more than enough rooms in the Parliament.
That's the suggestion was to organize something similar.
Absolutely, I'm absolutely agreeing with you,
and there are a couple of people in the room that I already last year,
suggested to have that.
To educate colleagues, such as myself,
because I will not lie, I'm learning a lot at the moment,
about the possibilities, about what all of that means in reality.
Everybody was always, you know,
we used these buzzwork edge computing,
which is a regular HPC and so on and so forth,
but I bet, and nobody would ever admit this,
there is a handful of people that would be able to have
a conversation level conversation on this,
and the rest would be just nodding and saying,
yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly, edge computing indeed, yeah.
So that's the thing.
We have one way out, and then one way out.
So the question is about how do we actually involve the private sector,
and how do we reach out to the private sector,
and maybe it's a question for you.
But in general, I think they do attend them,
so they just look for companies that are willing to provide
the work is necessary.
I would understand your questions slightly different in regards to
how can we involve the private sector in tools like
class wheat and open desk?
Exactly, thanks.
I think, so what we do right now is we try to figure out
how government to business models can look like.
In the software sector, you have that in energy
or building highways or something like that,
but you don't have that much in software,
so we are looking for solutions in that regard.
And open source is really helping us,
because the code is available,
you can go to our open source platform,
which is called opencode.de,
and you can just download open desk,
and the same is with last week,
I think there is a link also on the website,
or just Google it, and try to use it,
and I think what's really interesting for us is
not getting them involved in a contract business relation
to us, but them starting using it,
and creating the need, basically what you also said,
because from where you start using and sharing stuff,
you can basically also have the same solution,
still being kept as an open source tool.
You always see it whenever there is a migration.
I don't know, it was,
I think it was Slack or something like that,
where you would have at the beginning,
when they were looking for people,
all the APIs were open,
and you could migrate to it easily,
once they had a community base,
they shut down,
and I think this is something that we should keep in mind,
and having an open source-based product,
which is being kept open source,
and supported by governments,
but also maybe private institutions,
next question,
or maybe last question as far as answer, last question.
Yes.
It's a little funny to see that,
all of the things that everybody uses,
like the sources,
contacting all of the things that you're thinking of,
that the source or something is about you,
and I think it's this thing,
because all these folks out here,
like you would try an interest,
that they've always developed a game of a whole heart,
but don't just take this,
there is no single startup,
but it's really hard out there,
with own open source.
Yeah.
The people who've been there,
with open source,
you know,
you ask for open source.
It's a heavy burden for open source.
Yeah.
Google,
build an open source, right?
So there's things already there,
everything that's just from this game,
to the same thing that this folks,
for a thing,
and I think the only thing left is Microsoft,
so I'm not,
but even Microsoft is using open source,
that knowledge is now heavily inside open source,
but open source is a new,
an attempt to explore success.
I'm predicting this is one of the different settings,
itself,
it will place certain circumstances,
because open source,
original,
new source,
can make technology open for others to learn,
but not even all of these things.
So,
that 25 years,
you know,
yeah.
So, yeah.
No, yeah.
I think that the show summary is that open source is everywhere,
and we are all aware of it,
and it's not just an obvious thing,
there are companies,
even in Europe that do open source,
there's professional answers,
so I think they understood this,
so they are going to rely on open source.
So,
but now we have to close down,
so I will give them,
like 30 seconds each,
I think we still have,
okay.
So if you want to say something,
and then we can be close.
Thank you very much for the input from the questions in particular,
the last remark I think this should have been,
the closing remarks,
because they were true,
they were amazing,
and I think that yeah,
indeed all of you have jobs,
this is a paid industry that,
where you are supposed to be renumerated,
but for the vast majority of people,
it's invisible.
And this is,
I mean,
you have the same problem as the European Union,
we have a communication issue,
so we have to promote whatever we do better,
and discuss what we are doing for everyone else to understand.
I think this is a beautiful example
where we are actually in the same,
so to say,
in the same situation.
So obviously,
I'm taking a lot from this conversation,
and I'm very grateful for the invitation,
and looking forward to working with a few of you in the future.
I am.
My last remark is,
in the afternoon,
we have a deaf room on government collaboration.
So if you want to chat with us with different colleagues,
with the people from the Southern Cloud stack,
all of us,
I guess also,
the Dutch are going to be there as well,
the Netherlands,
maybe someone from the EU as well,
come to us and let's have a conversation there.
Thanks.