Our university has recently appeared in the press at the forefront of a crucial discussion, one that seeks to reclaim our independence from foreign companies and assert ownership over our data. This commitment to data sovereignty, at every level of our institution, is something I wholeheartedly support and embrace. It is a principle I stand firmly behind.

That is why I was taken aback by the recent discussions surrounding the new digital workplace plan. Let me be clear: I am not here to try and halt this project. We are in the final phase of an urgent update. One that allows us to transition away from outdated and end-of-life services toward a safer, more flexible infrastructure. This was presented to us as the enabler to switch providers in the future.

However, I must express my deep concern about what I heard in our last discussion. The current plan, intended to make our systems more flexible and manageable, appears to be locking us into a framework that is entirely dependent on Windows 11 and Azure Virtual Desktop.

We all know that change is difficult. It demands energy, and the unknown can be intimidating. The thought of moving from a familiar, maybe imperfect, system to a new one is daunting. So my worry is that this "intermediate step" toward a more flexible and open solution is actually an irreversible one, and that it will bind us even more tightly than now to the Microsoft ecosystem.

While I will not intend to derail the current process—it is too late for that—I am here to offer some unsolicited but urgent advice. Also in light of the budget cuts and sacrifices we are already making, we need to start working immediately on how to correct our course. We should push as much as possible for open solutions, not just to cut dependence but also to cut unnecessary licenses.

This doesn’t mean we have to abandon our current path entirely, but we must at least encourage the use of alternatives like LibreOffice or other free office suites where nothing more is necessary, and properly explore European services and infrastructural options.

By 2030, we should not find ourselves completely entangled in Microsoft’s web. Instead, we should be in a position to transition to something truly open and flexible, without building even more resistance than already exists. We must really act now.

There is another pressing issue in my opinion. The planned transition will require us to dispose of thousands of perfectly functional computers.

We cannot afford to let these machines pollute landfills or gather dust in storage rooms. While I understand that this falls under the responsibility of the faculties, we must provide the necessary infrastructure to ensure these devices are either properly recycled, donated to charities that can redistribute them to those in need, or made available for purchase by our postdocs, PhD students, and staff at a reduced price. If privacy is a concern, we can wipe or replace their hard drives, or even offer them without a hard drive, allowing users to replace it themselves at minimal cost.

My personal preference would be to establish a system that allows us to repurpose these computers. Many of them are still new and highly capable. It is only due to the constraints imposed by the planned obsolescence so dear to silicon valley corporations if they are being discarded. Simply because they do not support Windows 11, is it really impossible to repurpose them with Linux or another operating system? Can we not make the most of these resources instead of throwing them away? Sustainability has shown that it can save both money and the environment, let’s make this also into such an example.

These are technical discussions that I don’t think are suitable for this meeting, that is why I urge the board to set up a meeting between us and the CIT to bring this dialogue forward.

We have a responsibility to use our resources wisely and minimize waste. Let’s think critically about the long-term impact of our decisions, and next time, let’s be far more careful when evaluating our plans.