WIKIMOVE/Podcast/Transcript Episode 15

Transcript of WIKIMOVE Episode #15 - Recommendation 4: The story behind it

Nikki:

Welcome to episode 15 of WIKIMOVE. In this podcast we discuss the future of the Wikimedia Movement. I'm Nikki Zeuner and with me is Eva Martin.

Eva:

Hi everyone! Nikki and I are part of Wikimedia Deutschland's Governance and Movement Relations team. This episode was recorded on the 16th of November 2023. Things may have changed since then but there is one thing that we still know...

Nikki:

By 2030 Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us.

Eva:

So, Nikki, what are we going to talk about today?

Nikki:

Today we'll tell a story, the story that led to writing the Movement Strategy and especially recommendation four, which focuses on how our Movement should be governed in the future. In 2017 people in the Wikimedia Movement started to talk about the need for a global strategy and that is a set of agreements and principles that would lead us together towards the next decade and that would make sure we stay strong together.

Eva:

And one of the main components of the 2030 Movement Strategy is the development of a system by which we, as a Movement, can make decisions. A system that gives a voice to new people in groups and allows everyone to join. In conversation we call this 'governance'. So why did we choose this topic for today's show? Well, we often hear about recommendation four as we are getting closer to a governance system and a group called The MCDC is writing a document that will describe this governance, this is our Movement Charter.

Nikki:

So we're also getting closer to the Wikimedia Summit, which is going to be in April of 2024. There our Affiliates will have the opportunity to discuss governance and help shape that Charter. Today's conversation will serve as an intro to this backstory, to the reasons we have these conversations and explain the why. This is great for people who have since joined our Movement to get up to speed, but it's also great for those of us who've been part of these discussions for a long time and maybe have lost the why a little bit. I'm going to introduce our first guest, we have two historians of Movement Strategy on the call today. Our first guest is Margeigh Novotny. Margeigh joined the Wikimedia Foundation in 2018 to lead the design and research team in the product department and it was in this capacity that she became involved in the Movement Strategy working groups at the time. Prior to the Wikimedia Foundation, Margeigh worked on trust building, equitable value exchange and transparency in machine learning systems at Microsoft. She has recently left the Foundation but continues to participate as an adviser to the Movement Charter drafting committee. Hi Margeigh!

Margeigh:

Hi there!

Eva:

Our second guest today is someone who many of our WIKIMOVE listeners will remember from season one and that's Nicole Ebber. Nicole joined Wikimedia Deutschland in 2010 and is currently Director of Governance and Movement relations, so yes, she is the fearless leader of our team! Nicole led many projects that brought us to that point today where we have the privilege to discuss Movement Governance and she will talk about these projects later. In her life before Wikimedia she wrote her thesis about creative common licenses in NGOs and she was one of the first people to popularize the free licenses in Germany. Hi Nicole!

Nicole:

Hello again!

Eva:

Nice to have you here! First, we would like to get to know you both a little bit better. Nicole you've been involved in strategy conversations for more than 10 years now, can you please tell us what motivates you? Why is this Movement and its governance so important to you?

Nicole:

Very good question and many answers to that. I'm still very motivated now after 13 years working here to come back to the office every day and connect with my colleagues here, but also with the people around the world, so it's really the people that motivates me most and their passion and their belief in that a better world is possible, and that it's an effort that we are striving for together on a global level. Wikimedia stands for participation and co-creation and we want an open and non-commercialized internet which also means free access to knowledge and education and I think this is such an important task in the world. It's basically Free Knowledge for everyone and it's highly political and it's huge. And what motivates me to talk about governance like, all the time, is that I think that we cannot live up to what the world needs from us if we don't bring our own house in order. We are kind of standing in our own way by being really the best we can be and I think it's worth investing my time and energy and other people's time and energy into that change.

Nikki:

Thanks Nicole. So Margeigh you're a former staff member of the Wikimedia Foundation and you had big contribution to the development of that recommendation four which we'll talk about later. Why did you join that working group and what was so important to you about roles and responsibilities in the Movement?

Margeigh:

Well, first of all, it was just a fascination with both the goals of the Movement Strategy process period. I came in right at the beginning of phase two. The order of magnitude, the level of engagement that we were seeking and seeing from the community was something I haven't experienced anywhere else I've been and I thought this was really the most ambitious effort I'd ever heard of. We ended up engaging with what ended up being like thousands of people from the community in the end. And the problem of trying to rethink how the Free Knowledge Movement could, or should, reorganize or evolve is just a fascinating design problem. As a designer it was a daunting challenge once you've engaged all of these people in this process, how do you take all of their perspectives and synthesize them into something coherent and actionable? I was super eager and honored to be part of this 'roles and responsibilities'-working group.

Eva:

You both gave us the big picture already which is great, now let's talk a little bit more about how our current Movement Strategy originated. Nicole, can you maybe, and I know it's a hard one, but can you please give us a very quick history of Movement Strategy from 2013 until 2020, and maybe you can also insist on what was the motivation to change things and what were the main Milestones?

Nicole:

It's a little bit funny because in the prep you said like two minutes and I think for me it would be easier to talk about this for two hours. I'll try to keep it short and focus on the milestones and for me the first milestone was really the Chapters dialogue projects where Chapters and also the foundation have been asked about their needs and how they work and what kind of support they need and what they think what they would need from governance models as well. That was 2013 and you can read all about it on Meta of course. 2014 the results were presented at the Wikimedia conference, which is now the Wikimedia Summit, and this this conference happens year after year and had a focus on Movement Strategy. From, I think, 2017 on. In 2017 the Strategic Direction was developed, already in a very participatory process and with external research and new voices were involved. The Strategic Direction, Nikki has read it out earlier in the introduction, so you know that as well, and I think it's a very inspiring and huge strategic direction that can unite us all as a Movement. I took over to leading that process from 2018 to 2020, this working group phase that we will talk about more, that resulted in the 10 recommendations and 10 principles and this was this large process where we said "okay we can only do this process the wiki way" and that's also what motivated me to do it and to take over because I said "okay we can only do it if we really mean it to be very participatory and open because we need people's contributions and interest and we need to consult them because later on, we need people to commit to the implementation as well". And that's what was driving me also throughout this, I would say, radically open phase of Movement Strategy, and I think I'll talk about it a little bit later. I can already say it wasn't flawless, there were of course things to criticize but it was groundbreaking because it was the first time that we did it at such a scale. And that's also why the recommendations that came out of it provide the basis, the foundation, the mandate, for the implementation on the different levels that we are currently in. That's maybe the last milestone, we're now in the implementation mode of Movement Strategy and 2030 is then the next milestone where we'll check in and see how how far did we get with our Strategic Direction and plan. Maybe that was five minutes, I don't know…

Nikki:

Thanks, so Margeigh, you joined in phase two which was the phase after the Strategic Direction was written and everybody sort of marched, said, "okay we we're marching towards this direction where everyone can join us". Now what is it that needs to change? What do we need to do to get on that path? They put together nine working groups, I think, and you joined one of them and it was the 'Roles and responsibilities'-working group. You want to talk a little bit about that and what you did to arrive at this recommendation four? And at some point we also need to say what recommendation four says, I guess, because we keep quoting it but people who are not familiar with it probably don't know what it says. So maybe if you could get to that, thanks.

Margeigh:

Sure, so recommendation four is insuring equity in decision-making. We started our work as a group by trying to build a common picture of what the challenges and the opportunities of the current Government Governance Structures were and we did this by talking to as many people in the Movement as were willing to talk to us. As a working group we did quite extensive interviews with, I think, up around 25 people in all. Including members of the working group who had a lot of embedded knowledge from the different roles and responsibilities they'd had historically and then this working group met and and synthesized basically all of the perspectives that we had learned about through these interviews and come up with a set of assumptions and principles that were currently at work in the Movement. What was interesting about this is that these assumptions and principles, which are linked in the show notes in case anyone's interested, many of them are in conflict with one another. So our starting point was to begin to debate of the current assumptions and principles which are consistent, or in alignment with, the Movement Strategy or Movement Vision, basically where we want to get to, and which weren't. The other thing that came out during these interviews was information and perspectives on who has authority over which kind of decisions currently and we also got recommendations for how that needed to change in order to get to our goals. So the basis of recommendation four 'Ensuring equity and decision-making' came out super early in this process and it showed up as a pattern of responses around calls for more self-determination and more autonomy in decision-making. There were recommendations for how to reorganize or eliminate certain committee processes, there were recommendations for how to foster community-led decision-making and there were suggestions for different models of governance that might better serve our goals.

Eva:

Margeigh, the work you're describing was completed in 2020, this is three years ago. Can you maybe tell us a little bit more, back then, what were your hopes for the future of the Movement and for the future of what would be done with this recommendations?

Margeigh:

For me, I'm just speaking personally, I'd hope that the process we followed would ensure, we would finish and we would have a Community support and buy-in so that everybody would have built momentum towards the implementation phase of this project. I'd hoped that all of the detail and documentation that went into the recommendations that were made would serve as a basis for this draft in process is happening now. I'd hope that all the findings and conclusions would be leveraged in this current process. And then, you know, one of the other aspects of what came out of the recommendations were the set of 40 initiatives that basically were implied by the recommendations. My hope, as a designer, as a project and program sort of person, I was hoping to see an order of operations type approach, starting with the most fundamental things and hoping that the most fundamental initiatives would then inform all the initiatives that followed. And that this implementation phase would be efficient and predictable and that we'd be able to move towards our 2030 goals more quickly and predictably.

Eva:

Margeigh, you just mentioned the initiatives and the recommendations and all of that comes from the Movement Strategy principles that were developed even before the recommendations were. So that's a question to Nicole, can you maybe tell us a little bit more (about) how did we get to those Movement Strategy principles and how are they still important and relevant today?

Nicole:

I can talk about that and when I was thinking about when we first talked about or dealt with these principles, it was for me a little bit of a difficult time because it was at the so-called Harmonization Sprint that happened in Tunis in September 2019. It had a beautiful name 'Harmonization Sprint' where we wanted to harmonize the 98 recommendations that the working groups had developed together down to 10 on just one weekend, "let's just do it, it will be easy" and spoiler, no, it didn't work and it wasn't easy and this event was super difficult for the people there, for us, for me and the team but of course also for the participants. Some people already wanted to leave and it was super painful and then at some point we understood that there was something lacking to actually create that harmony that we needed and it was really some foundation that we can first all agree on, like some foundation or some underlying things, that we can all agree on and that we can then build the recommendations upon, and those were the principles, and also they didn't just magically appear, those principles, but many of the working groups, probably even most of the working groups, had been working on principles because they had already realized that, we were a little bit slower than the working groups maybe at that point, they had already realized that they needed some kind of ground work, and as I said, underlying principles. I think they serve an absolutely important purpose today, even though sometimes we tend to forget that they are there because people are talking about, as Eva and Margeigh said, principles and recommendations but then we like look back at the principles because they are very good and they are uniting. They guide the implementation of Movement Strategy and they also describe what kind of Movement we are, and what kind of Movement we want to be. To quote from the principles, they are fundamental beliefs that guide our work across our Movement and also they speak to what it means to be a Wikimedian. I find that super fundamental, essential work that has gone into that and that's also why I think they are very important. Super important today!

Nikki:

Let's get a little more concrete in terms of what are the principles that we're talking about and we'll link those in the show notes too, but what do they mean for when we talk about governance? What do they mean when we talk about roles and responsibilities of different actors in the Movement? Who makes decisions? I know Margeigh, you guys, a lot of the principles come out of your working group and some of the more central ones. You want to talk a little bit about how they're relevant now today to writing that Charter?

Margeigh:

Again, speaking from a personal perspective here, I feel like three of the Movement Strategy principles are particularly relevant to the project of drafting a Charter. The three I think of, are 'inclusivity and participatory decision making', 'equity and empowerment', and 'subsidiarity and self-management'. To go a tiny bit deeper on each of those, 'inclusivity and participatory decision-making' is really about creating a governance model that will maximize the ability of different entities in the Movement to influence the outcomes they most want to see. That means maximizing the ability for individual community members, projects, and Affiliates to participate basically. The inclusivity part is about recognizing that in order to reach our 2030 vision, we really need to make the Movement attractive and hospitable to people in groups who are not yet part of the Movement. The 'equity and empowerment' principle is about ensuring that newcomers to the Movement are treated, not equally but rather equitably, in the sense that they're given the resources needed to allow them to flourish. This means agreeing as a collective to honor and promote the unique and emergent needs of our newest community members, and in this way to empower them to expand the Movement in their context. The third one 'subsidiarity and self-management', this is about creating a governance structure that allows decisions to be made at the most local level possible and to minimize top-down governments as much governance as much as possible by creating a structure where nodes of the network are empowered to make whole categories of decisions and then to manage the execution and consequences of those decisions at that local level. My take on these three principles is that they imply kind of a nested model of governance where only the most overarching strategic and operational decisions are taken at the highest level, and more localized governing bodies exist to handle all the decisions that can be made downstream in more localized contexts which, to me, suggests a way to maximize participation and governance across the Movement, while also preserving self-determination and autonomy at the most local level.

Eva:

Okay, I'm the only person in this conversation who was not around during the Movement Strategy process, so let me maybe just summarize what has been said so far to make sure that other newbies also follow the conversation. A lot of people met together, they worked together, they came up with the Strategic Direction, then with the principles. Based on this, we wrote the recommendations and the initiatives. If I understand correctly then after this long process the Movement Strategy was finalized but it was never ratified. Maybe Nicole, you can tell us a little bit about where does this Movement Strategy draws its legitimacy from?

Nicole:

I find it, I wouldn't say funny but maybe it's awkward or something like that, that legitimacy of such a process can only come through, I don't know, this thing called ratification or vote, because for this process we decided that the process itself is the ratification, to be honest. Because it was so long, it was participatory, it was iterative, so the, I mean Margeigh, you might remember when you published the first draft of the recommendation: It was a super early draft and we said it, it's very early it's really at the first stages, and we publish it so that the working groups can get a sense of how the Movement will react, of what the Movement thinks about it and what they would like to change, to get a sense of it and people were freaking out completely "how dare you publish something that is not yet ready and there's something in it which I don't like at all and they want to make the decisions for us". It was really super difficult and it was also difficult to explain (that) this is only a first draft, and we publish it, it's like a stop on Wikipedia where also you want people to come and make them better. This was repeated for a couple of rounds and that's why I also say (that) it was so iterative because in each stage of the recommendation they were published, they were discussed, we held like events and online sessions and on-Wiki consultations, one-on-one conversations that we then fed back into the larger process and so on. What was also difficult there, was like, to strike this balance between over consultation and not involving people because some people were really like "oh my God you're throwing these recommendations at us all the time, we cannot even read everything and so on". And others were saying "why have we not been asked and so on". So it was also really difficult for us to manage. And as I said, we use these different formats and we also identified gaps in the groups or in the content and tried to find people and context to find those gaps and also motivate people to engage and to join who probably haven't been among the usual suspects or loud voices from previous phases. For example, we offered scholarships for internet access or for travel to an internet cafe so that a person could participate in a call, I mean, we can all just sit here in this call easily from home or from the office but for others it was probably more difficult, or they needed child care and so on. We also started translating all those meetings and even started offering interpretation which is now usual but it had been only slowly introduced then. It was again this whole big huge participation can be seen as, from my perspective, as the ratification. I think when you asked about numbers, it's very difficult to say numbers because I would, in a humble way, say hundreds but maybe it was thousands. One thing that we could count was that people from 70 countries participated in it and we had for example around 50 local organizers who held events with their Communities or Affiliates and then we had of course hundreds who participated on Wiki and on these different events so it was a huge group of people. I'm more than open, and to say it over and over again, it was of course not perfect. I mean, how can such a process be perfect? It was not flawless, and also, of course, our time and resources weren't endless and the time and resources of all the volunteers and people in the working rooms were also not endless so at some point it needed to come together to these recommendations and yes, that's when we published them. With that publication they were there and they were valid for the Movement.

Nikki:

I think also the fact that we have recommendations and not goals is also a sign of the iteratives of the Movement Strategy. The principles hold, still today, some of the recommendations, especially the one on equity and decision-making, absolutely still holds. Some of the other ones haven't been implemented but the recommendations, like I said earlier, these are the things we have to do to get on that path towards a strategic direction where we're inclusive and diverse and everyone can join us. We didn't just make that stuff up based on the values we had in those days. I wanted Margeigh to talk a little bit about, what did you guys do in addition to all that participation, all that input you got from the Movement itself, from the Communities. You also get input from outside the Movement, right? I think that's really important, you want to talk about that for a minute?

Margeigh:

As a high level map of the process, we had kind of a three-step process, and I've already talked about the first step, which was us trying to understand and map out the existing decision-making structure of the Movement, so that was step one. Step two was research to understand what other organizational models might be worth considering. For example we invited an expert from the Buurtzorg organization to give us a deep dive into how a teal organization works. I think that might be linked from the show notes as well, just background on what the Buurtzorg model is. This research actually was the origin of the recommendation for a Hub model which seems to have taken some hold people's imagination so far. The third step was, we developed criteria for evaluating each of these different alternative models against one another. Including thinking through what the pitfalls of each one might be in our context. As a result of that process we had landed on this idea of a general Council which was originally envisioned to have the authority to create and disband Committees that were charged with X or Y problem for a particular period of time to set up as many participatory bodies as needed to solve the problems of the day, and then to disband these Committees if they had served their purpose. The other idea was that the regional, there was this kind of a small set of regional Hubs, who would become the administrative and operational support structure for their local Movements contributors, projects and groups. Overall the recommendation was about shifting power and decision-making, just as the community was calling for throughout this process. Ultimately the idea of the Hubs was a way of realizing or facilitating those concepts of subsidiarity and self-management so that we were doing that to the greatest degree possible.

Nikki:

Thanks for doing all that work back then, which now you can see Hubs is something that really is gathering momentum and as a way to decentralize decision-making, great work! So Nicole, like I said earlier, these are recommendations and a lot has been going on in the world since 2020, but has anything changed since 2020 that would make you say "well recommendation four is outdated or is less relevant" at this point?

Nicole:

I wish I could say yes, that would make all our lives so much easier, right? "Problem solved let's move on"! No, I think it's even more important, or more relevant, to really look at, how can we ensure equity and decision-making, decisions about money, about what roles and responsibilities Affiliates or of course also the Wikimedia Foundation should play in the Movement. I think, as I said also in the beginning, that we need to get our own house in order, to become the Movement that the world needs us to be. That involves governance of course. I think we as a Movement to the outside stand for so many things, like maybe justice and freedom and democratic decision-making, but when you really look into the inside you don't see that at such a level as probably our projects are known for. It's also our own our Movement sustainability. How can we remain strong and relevant and resilient and also continue to fight this radical act of fighting for Free Knowledge? I think, we stand in our own way and don't have that clarity for ourselves and in how we work together across the Movement and with the other Movement players also as partners and striving for the same cause and supporting each other. I think that it's continues to be difficult and I also think that not so much has changed since 2020. We are still a centralized Movement. I mean, yes, the Hubs are, and we really have to congratulate your working group on that, because that really took off that idea. But still, decision-making is still very much centralized and not equitable and of course some organizations, like Affiliates, but also the Wikimedia Foundation have been moving forward on some of the initiatives, for example, the Foundation implementing their own Regional Grant committees. But from my perspective, all these steps, they are only a patch for the symptoms, right? They only cover the surface of these issues but they really don't go into fixing the overall problem of decision-making not being equitable and also fund distribution not be equitable. What we've recently, that's maybe a little bit too nerdy, but there has been this RFC request for comments on the English Wikipedia about asking the Foundation to involve the English language Wikipedia Community into decisions about funding and projects that don't involve English Wikipedia and I think that shows how kind of broken this governance system is, because these decisions are not being made on a global level and now the English Community speaks with the Foundation about that they want to have a a lot a say in those global decisions-making. But why should it only be the English Wikipedia and not the global Community.

Nikki:

So it goes to show why we still need more transparency, more equity, more participation in making decisions. One of the things that I always think of is, let's create some structures where all our lives are easier and we don't spend so much time on conflict and on fighting about things and create some, not just make legitimate decisions, but also make smart decisions so that people can just move on and edit Wikipedia and do their things.

Nicole:

Yeah, absolutely! That's also a thing what a couple of people say about this Global Council and Movement Charter. It all takes so long and it takes so much time and decisions will be even slower and it will also be so expensive. I think that once we have established an equitable system, it might take a little bit longer but we don't have to go back and fight after all those decisions and discuss and then turn the decisions back. Then we have agreement and can move on and can take care of the next stuff that's right ahead of us.

Nikki:

It's also a more accountable way to to work with donor money is if we don't spend years on bad decisions that then actually don't get implemented.

Nicole:

Can I say one more thing uh about that?

Nikki:

Sure!

Nicole:

I wanted to say that, that also if we question these recommendations or the Strategic Direction they are an agreement between really multiple stakeholders in the Movement and if we now question them fundamentally it puts us back to where we started in 2015 and this would again be a waste of time and resources but also it would harm the trust that we build with these participatory processes. The trust and the time that all these volunteers and staff invested in it would basically be wasted and I don't think we can risk this. We cannot risk this, we need to build upon those results and of course we need to adapt, iterate and evaluate, but still move forward instead of always looking back.

Eva:

You mentioned the Movement Charter and I would just like to introduce this project a little bit better. This is coming from the recommendation number four. That's an initiative that comes from this recommendation, and there is this group right now the MCDC, Movement Charter Drafting Committee, that is writing this document and this document is supposed to lay out the foundation of our future governance system and there are a lot of hopes and wishes but also fears that are connected to that. Margeigh, I would like to hear from you, what are your hopes?

Margeigh:

On a personal level, I hope that we can build on all of the research, synthesis and effort that has already gone into crafting these recommendations, as Nicole and Nikki just mentioned. I think that's the best and most responsible use of resources is if we can build on these things. I would love to see that, or I believe actually, that by craftiness Movement Charter we were going to unleash the ability to tackle many of the other initiatives. This is sort of a necessary step to make all the rest of it happen. I would really like to see this happen quickly, and efficiently, and utilizing all of the knowledge we've gained so far along the way. I guess, just personally, my vision of the Movement is that there is this Council of elected and selected Council members whose job it is to make only the most overarching operational strategic decisions in collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation, of course, and that there is a small number of regional Hubs who can extend the support and resource management that is now provided exclusively by the Foundation and have this extended decision-making capability extended further out into the Movement. I think those two things will together maximize the opportunity for participation in Movement governments governance overall and those two things are going to be the way by which we enable this possibility of subsidiarity, or the idea of decision-making and empowerment at the most local level possible.

Eva:

Sounds like a great vision for 2030 I cannot wait!

Nikki:

Thanks Margeigh. To wrap up, let's look at the Summit again, which we hope many Summit participants are listening to this episode to get their heads sort of pointed in that direction of talking about governance. What is in your opinion, Nicole, what is the meaning of the Summit 2024 in all this, in this creating a more equitable Movement governance?

Nicole:

I mean for me, it's really the last opportunity for Affiliates to shape the Charter. Because it will be be close to being finalized and at the Summit in April the Affiliates they come together and they can really develop, I mean I hope, they use this opportunity to develop a joint stance on the future of how decisions will be made in the future and what their role and their responsibilities of the Affiliates and the organizations in the Movement will be. To be honest it's up to the Wikimedia Summit organizers, which Wikimedia Deutschland of course is mainly involved with, but also it's really up to the Affiliates to make use of that chance and I hope they will take that chance because it's the last chance to do that.

Nikki:

Famous last words. So, Affiliates, get together, reach out and let's make this happen in April of 2024 and then we can also maybe have Affiliates Gatherings where we don't have to talk about governance anymore. That would be nice, as well! All right, so that's a wrap, I think. That's a wrap of our 15th episode of WIKIMOVE. Thank you for listening, thank you to our guests Margeigh, Nicole, it was great to have you. Thanks for giving that perspective, it was wonderful! Eva, read us out.

Eva:

WIKIMOVE is a production of Wikimedia Deutschland and its Governance and Movement relations team. WIKIMOVE is also available on podcast app and on YouTube and there will be English subtitles to this episode. Our music was composed and produced by Rory Gregory and is available under CC BY-SA on Wikimedia Commons, and so are all of our WIKIMOVE episodes. Thanks again to our wonderful guests, we all learned a lot today, at least I did, as I said, I was the only one who was not part of this whole story. So thank you very much for telling us about what happened back then.

Nikki:

You can visit our WIKIMOVE Meta page and listen to all the episodes and also suggest topics and guests for future episodes. You can even suggest yourself if you want to come on and talk about Movement Strategy, it doesn't have to be governance. You can react to podcasts and connect with other listeners and subscribe to be notified when we release new episodes.

Eva:

If you want to reach out to us, please do so via the WIKIMOVE Meta page or you can also send us an email and all the relevant links are available on the show notes. Thank you for listening, we hope to see you soon! Thank you, ciao! Bye!