So, I'm going to present my proposal for a Euroshark. Of course, inspired, we had last year
here, the discussions about a Eurostack at Boston, and it then had a very strange career.
It ended up in the German coalition treaty by surprise, but not only the Eurostack, but also
the German-Landstack, and both of them were like empty boxes, no one really knew what was
exactly inside. The Eurostack discussions inspired us very much, and they took a bit of a twist
of by European, which personally, I have my difficulties to endorse and more for open markets
and global collaboration. And even by American, I cannot take the seriously, sorry about that.
So, what's the Euroshark? First of all, yeah, I made a nice logo, and it's a friendly word play
on the Eurostack. I didn't want to piggyback on the various proposals that we have, and it's
a kind of workshop idea of let's create some plans for what we can do in order to promote open
source and create some capacity in open source, because previously there were some discussions here
about different organizational models, and how to reorganize the community. That's very nice.
Last year, on the of emailing list, I think I had some interesting experience. I was
I scribbled often some plans, and I was scribbling some plans for the Fedivers. I'm not so
so much into this community, but I wrote a plan, and then I got very nice feedback from people
who were working on alternative social media, and they give me lots of getting lots of input.
And I think there's a need now independent of the organizational setting where it takes place
to think about plans for what shall we do, and when we get the funding, and what can we present
as an inspirational idea as a project in order to get some funding? Yeah, it's a word play on the
Euro stack, of course, but friendly. And it's also the word shack is a tribute to this world of
legendary investor world where we have the garage and the shacks where people just do their stuff.
In essence, what should come out of it is like a collection of plans,
where you can have whatever your organizational settings, I've prepared here something for you.
This is a project you can do into in your new setting.
And I must admit, so far I worked very much on the curation element of all of this,
which means like the basic ideology, so to speak, like the questions that always get asked,
and I thought it's better like to answer them before we get into the discussions over again,
which means the decisions I've taken, how to describe things,
while we don't want to do Airbus projects, etc.
Need to get written down to be a base for discussion with you can disagree, of course.
The objective is also lots of discussion last year, digital sovereignty,
maybe it's better to talk about agency, yeah, which is here we have a definition that's nice to
start with something concrete, the ability of individuals, organizations and public authorities
to actively shape, manage and control their use of digital technologies and services.
The older ones of us remember for software freedoms, but that's very much specific to free software.
We can take this more generally to a digital ecosystem and then we have digital sovereignty.
We can also frame digital sovereignty in a broader picture of, yeah, you know, territorial sovereignty,
it's still current with Greenland, energetic sovereignty, Russia, I'm just mentioning,
and of course technological, or digital sovereignty, our ability to grow to control the software
and the hardware that we have. So just to put it together there's a fundamental spirit and there's
the frugal manifest that I've taken as inspiration. It's a bit similar to, yeah, with the
open knowledge context, came with like the tech we want. So puts a framing where one also talks
about like creative use, about ecological effects of coding smart, doing more with less
and applying open source principles. What's important for me is also open-class practices.
Because in the end, we have like this open source where a government contractor provides source code
and in the end it's released as open source, but we're not using actually the benefit of open source
collaboration, like using GitHub, like development in the open and so on. And I thought it was
an attractive about ideology. I thought it was also very helpful to write it up, to explain
to others what constitutes an important element of open source communities, how we collaborate
together. And this was important for me, global focus. This shouldn't be something
where you just have, yeah, the way we just say by European and we don't even care if it's
open source or not, but more like our focus should be like to strengthen the global collaboration
and ecosystem and make sure that it's open so it can be exchange, the interesting business model
scan flourish and build this Euroshark. The Euroshark, both, is on the one hand like this set of
plants that are about to be developed, but at the same time also like the creative workshop
and the creative process for making this happen, the idea is to define these blueprints
for scalable open and it is important scalable open projects. However, and at that point with
scalable there should be a backstop. Like we make a project proposal, but in a way it already exists.
So everything, everything that goes into it leads to, yeah, I'm perfect in time, just yourself
of the time that's nice. So we have the backstop of something that already exists in a way so we don't
have to, we don't have a risk. This is very important in the political field because say when
you come with something like, okay, Europe should get its own search engine, then sounds like,
okay, the French have a crazy idea to combat Google and yeah, this cost land 300 million,
but they will not succeed and politicians they don't like to invest in projects that will not
succeed. I think an open source ecosystem gives us already a very nice environment where money
that gets funded for such ideas will lead to, yeah, a growing of the technology stack and so
even if the project as such fails, you will have a contribution to the overall thing and it
will be something good. So that's important for me to prevent like this here because and this
also something I address with the Eurocheck when you're into EU policy discussions. In the EU
treaties we have the objective of competitiveness and competitiveness as an ideology basically is
we side with the strong party, we support the strong party and so we strengthen our own strengths
and this in my view has led to the shortcoming in the digital field because we always said,
oh, it doesn't make any sense to compete with Microsoft, etc. So in Europe, yes, there are some
small media enterprises that have interesting solutions but they cannot compete with the market share
that they have and the capital, etc. So let's ignore this European companies and competitors.
So this whole idea of competitiveness which is so enshrined into the European policy making
in a way discouraged, supporting of challenges and investing in challenges even if they don't
succeed in the market just for levelling the play field for creating competition because there is
a very distinct difference between competitiveness and competition. Competition,
new compete with each other, it's what businesses actually don't like and competitiveness means
we are the market leaders we're strong in it and like yeah of course also in the political
sphere there's always like this tendency side with the strong party. If you're doing politics
regardless of your party you always have to follow the the more powerful people in your party
if you want to make a policy career. So this is a big of often, often say political twist that we
have to challenge when we want to change the funding infrastructure for open source and last but
not least the question is if we make plans what to focus on, what to work on and I put out
I think three general components, one is the digital market act was created with like
the notion of very large companies gatekeepers and these gatekeepers in the area of
poor platform services are regulated. So what does poor platform services mean you find a definition
in the digital market act it's something like search engines it's something like operating systems
very foundational things a payment services this is poor platform service okay I will very quickly
close down and then we also have class one and two of important products with digital elements
very similar in the CRA this is something we can use and I guess we also need to do something
about like the basic work desktop for instance office productivity software people office
etc yeah operating systems communications and collaborations video telephony solutions
security solutions basic AI and data analysis and cloud infrastructure and specialized applications
so just to give you an example what these kinds of plans could be I have two examples one is
like let's have a European gaming console yeah and think how to build this with open source
and then we can think about the components so this doesn't mean like we pay a lot of money for
for for Linux graphics but this will involve in the course of creating this gaming console
we can also say backstop we already have steam OS so there's something that already exists
and that goes into this direction the other point HPC desktop you know what HPC is HPC means
basically supercomputers all supercomputers are Linux machines and they are these projects with
400 million euros spent on a supercomputer so in this context we can also say we need client equipment
and that would be an HPC desktop computer and if you have like these big funding instruments
with I don't know 2 billion on supercomputers for for Madrid and for Paris then it will be easy
why not get us 10 million in this umbrella for making a Linux desktop specifically for researchers
and this is what we will work on these plans I will get out of the basic document and everything
on the website but this is yeah sorry more or less the preview sorry yeah if I took too much time that was