the ironwork that he was instrumental in. So he's really led the platform to maturity and then really helped to move it along into direction it needs to go. So let's go back to those early days when you were developing Hadoop and it was just kind of a thought in your mind. What were your ambitions for Hadoop as a technology, as a platform? Were you looking beyond the application that you were looking to apply to when you were developing it? And did you think it would develop into what it is today and becoming an enterprise-grade tool? So Google published these papers about the way they were doing things. And they were addressing the same problems that I was working on in Nutch in an open-source project. So there's an obvious opportunity to take those and improve Nutch fundamentally, which we set about doing. But at the time I realized there were uses beyond Nutch probably that people admired that work that Google had done greatly, but they couldn't use it directly because it was only useful at Google. And then making an open-source project would probably bring it to more people and I hoped it would succeed that way. But I liken it to a football play. You've seen a diagram for a football player. There's all these arrows. And in every play that the offense charts out, there's a touchdown. Every defender is taken care of and you score. Now we know that that's not the case. And so I mean, I obviously hoped and tried to plan for a successful open-source project. You know, I've started a number of open-source projects. Some of them have been successful, some moderately, some more so. And so, but you don't score every time. So I hoped it would be big. I had no idea that it would be as big as it has become. That was certainly not something I was imagining. I was thinking within the context primarily of building search engines and maybe doing log analysis, but not a lot beyond that. And similarly, Arun, when you were thinking about yarn in that wired article I was just reading from a couple years back, you mentioned how you woke up at 3 a.m. in the morning and you were concerned about an issue you had and that kind of one of the things that inspired you to develop yarn. Were you thinking just about, how is this gonna help me solve my problem? Or were you even back then thinking about how this could be applied to other enterprises, other business problems? You know, at that point, you know, the world was very different, right? I mean, Hidup was being used by a small number but very influential number of companies whether it's Yahoo, Facebook, LinkedIn and so on. For us, it was, for me personally, it was just about let's do things better, right? We would all, you know, we all really liked working on the project, we sort of felt like we put a lot of blood, sweat and tears into it and we sort of all looked at it as our baby, right? We want to see the baby grow up and we wanted to help our users, at least the internal users, right? And we were running it as a shared service internally. We wanted to help our internal users do more things with data and we were seeing that people were twisting, MapReduce beyond recognition to do something. They were using MapReduce to do web serving, they were using MapReduce to do machine learning and now that was working well, right? MapReduce is an amazing, amazingly simple paradigm which is why it's been so successful, right? And obviously, Doug's helped us, at least even initially helps us understand that we have to keep things very simple, right? If you don't keep things simple, you're not going to be successful. But then at the right point, you have to introduce the right set of complexity, if you will, and go beyond doing, you know, log analytics and search. And that was primarily, I mean, around the 2009 timeframe, web search was, you know, the investment in web search internally wasn't extremely high, but we were also looking at so many use cases beyond just web search at that point. So it was actually, it was almost staring at us in the face. So let's talk about the people out here in the community and the role they've played and the role they're going to play in the future. You know, for the first few years of Hadoop, you know, there weren't any even commercial companies trying to sell Hadoop-related products. Of course, over the last several years, we've seen just a kind of an explosion of startups and even a lot of the larger mega vendors getting involved in this market as well. So how is the future development of the platform maybe going to contrast to its earlier days when it was a little bit more of a, not as maybe as organized an ecosystem, and not as large for sure, certainly not as much money being pumped into the ecosystem. How is that going to impact the way we see this moving forward? Is there tension between some of the vendor community and the open source community? How's that going to play out, do you think? I think the vendors are motivated by the users. So there's a level of indirection, but it's still the same fundamental motivation. You know, you somehow people have itches and the open source project is a way to address those, to scratch those itches. And typically, you know, some companies will invest them directly and contribute to the open source and some companies will complain to their vendor and the vendor will invest and improve the project. But I see it growing, continuing to grow organically through a combination of vendors and folks who are getting involved directly. We have a lot of customers at Cloudera who contribute as well. They get support from us, but they also in some areas get so involved in a project that they'll be making additions and changes to it. And so the two aren't even exclusive. So I don't see a real fundamental change with the presence of vendors in the space. I think they give a way for people to, in some ways, fund more development and direct it without having to hire all those people so you get some economies. But it's still motivated by need, I think, more than anything. Arun, what's your take? You know, about our point about users, I think especially if you're in this room and you used Hadoop four or five years ago, I can't thank you guys enough, right? If without the users, the software wouldn't be useful at all. It wouldn't have had that level of feedback which would be important to actually fix it or improve it in dimensions. I think as more people get involved, I think it's only gonna get better. I'm, in a lot of ways, I think Hadoop's got really lucky because it's housed in the Apache Software Foundation and that plays a really big role in terms of helping create an environment where people, we can compete with each other as companies but at the end of the day, we have to act as individuals in the SF, right? And you're seeing more and more investment. You're seeing investment from Cloudera. You're seeing from Hortonworks. You're seeing Microsoft invest in Apache Hive. That wouldn't have happened. You'll see IBM show up. You'll see all these guys show up. A lot of reason is also the Apache Software Foundation. So I think it's actually in good shape and it's only gonna get better. And what do you need to do to keep the community aspect vital? How do you keep that going? Because it's a critical component, obviously, of the development of Hadoop to this point. And as you've both said, it's gonna be a critical component going forward. How do you maintain the vitality of that community as it starts to grow, as it starts to, new projects start to come about that are associated with Hadoop, maybe not core to it. How do you keep that community vital and active? I mean, as Arun sort of indicated, Apache is really designed to foster ongoing thriving living communities. And so far proven very successful at that in the Hadoop space. We see whatever there are, 15 or more projects today and more on the way every month almost, there's a new one started. So I see that continuing. I think it's very healthy that we have a large number of independent projects that integrate together loosely though. They're not tightly integrated, which permits the whole ecosystem to evolve. There is no central point of control to some degree the Hadoop project is the central point of integration today, but there's no reason long-term that it has to be. The community can really vote with its feet, depending on what things it installs and the whole ecosystem can evolve, which I think is a very strong resilient architecture. And I think Apache's given us the foundation for that. And to add to what Doug said, it's also the key of the users. We have to continue to make Hadoop easy to use, easy to consume. And at this point, if you go look at a small example, as we look at the mailing list that we have, we probably have 10,000 people or so on the mailing list across all the projects. That's the indicator of the amount of interest in an open source project. I think there are other examples of projects like Linux, which have been around for a long time and have been very, very successful. So I think the key part is to make sure that we adapt to the needs of the users and make sure that the software is being relevant on a daily basis to these guys. So let's talk a little bit about the technology as it applies to the enterprise. Well, how do you see it playing out today? Where do you see Hadoop fitting into a larger architecture of a more traditional enterprise, not necessarily a web company? And how do you see that going forward? I mean, you've got different views. You've got some that say, Hadoop is going to be the center of the data management, architecture, infrastructure. Others say Hadoop is more about the complementary approach to some of the things you're doing now. How do you fundamentally see Hadoop as it evolves over the next five years and what role will it play inside the enterprise? There isn't one answer for every institution. Everybody moves differently. Some people, more often, small new companies, but sometimes big companies will really standardize and centralize all of their data in Hadoop and move more and more things to it. Other folks will deploy Hadoop in very point applications where it's providing clear value and there's everything in between. I think the platform is really designed to permit people to affordably store more data in one place with a variety of tools. And so that enables that first model, which really wasn't available before to people in enterprise technology. And we think that's a very exciting direction and that's going to be an ever bigger one. But it won't be universal, I don't think ever. I mean, there's always going to be niche systems, particular things that are going to live outside of that hub of data. But we think that's the trend. It's a long trend. We're in the early stages still. Most folks are getting started. But I think most folks are also seeing that's a direction they want to move towards more centralization, more variety of services on the same shared data set that this platform provides. So I think we need to plan around that and engineer to try to facilitate that. But we also need to facilitate interaction with existing tools and with external tools because that's a reality for now and it will be a reality into the future as well. So I came over for a classic web to auto company where we had all the license in the world to reinvent the wheel and the rest of the bike. But as we go on to the broad enterprise, we are absolutely aware of the fact that people have investments, both CapEx and OpEx, but equally importantly skills that have been around for people have been doing SaaS and all these things for 30, 40 years. They're not gonna turn around tomorrow and start writing Java MapReduce code. So I think it's very important for the platform to be broadly applicable that it really, really plays well with the rest of the ecosystem. In the end of the day, what we wanna do is provide value. What Hadoop has shown is that there's a way to store and process data at scale and when you can do that, people start to look at data in a different light. People start to understand that there's inherent value in data and there's probably inherent value in storing it and not dropping it. I saw a joke around that it's cheaper today to store data than to make the decision to figure out what to throw away. And that's what Hadoop is showing and once you get there, we have to work well with the entire ecosystem, whether it's SaaS or SAP or RTAR data or Microsoft. Well, right, I mean, so there's a lot of talk about the impact of Hadoop on some of the more traditional vendors. Is Hadoop a threat, do you think, to the data warehouse industry, for example? Should they fear the rise of Hadoop or should they embrace it? We see a lot of people today moving workloads from data warehouses into Hadoop. Now, not necessarily all of their workloads, but they're attempting to limit their data warehouse spend. That's a common phenomenon we see today. We don't see a lot of folks replacing their data warehouse outright today. Whether that might happen in the future, it seems possible in some places that that'll happen. Whether it'll happen everywhere, whether there'll be continued to be an edge that the data warehouse will retain in certain cases, we'll see. But even if you just take the case today, that's a threat. If you've got a lot of people no longer increasing the size of the data warehouse, but rather capping the size or potentially even decreasing their investment because they can find they can do much of the processing as effectively and much more affordably in a Hadoop-based system, then I think that's a threat. And what do you think? I think what we're seeing is, historically, what people have done is they've done everything in their data marts and their warehouses. You've had what I look at class A to class Z workloads in the marts and the warehouses. In a lot of cases, the curve stops at M or N and M or N, and they just drop the data. What they're seeing now is if you can actually store and process all the data, there is inherently more value you see from the data. And in some cases, we are seeing people actually get more value from their data warehouses and data marts. So we definitely see that happening. Long-term, I think the key part is Hadoop is to stay relevant. Hadoop today is, it's the same project, the same notes. It's not even nearly the same sort of people. The people we started work on six years ago, a lot of them have moved on. Hadoop has to stay relevant if it has to succeed for the next 10 years. And technology is interesting. Things could change. There are newer storage paradigms coming out. There are new compute paradigms coming out. Memory is getting larger and larger.  I don't want to be the next John Juan Newman. Well, fantastic. Thanks, guys. We're just about out of time. Just kind of last question. And as you say, it is a little difficult to prognosticate and think about where we'll be in five years because then any number of things can happen. But nevertheless, I'm going to ask you to do that. Final thoughts. I mean, we're at this show in five years from now. What is this going to look like from a adoption perspective and the role in the larger enterprise? Orin, why don't you start? Sure. I think what I'd like to see happen is for Hadoop to get to a point where it's sort of the key part of your data center. I'd like to see a point where you can install Hadoop. You can just lay out Hadoop in a more easier fashion than today on the data center. And it can manage different classes of storage. We're sort of on the journey right now, whether it's fast disk, slow disk, SSD, memory, different kinds of memory, NV-RAM, and so on. And then equally importantly, manage all the resources. It's CPU, GPUs, disk, flash, and so on. And sort of provide a data operating system, or data center operating system, if you will. And we want to make sure that you can continue to store data at scale at a low cost, and then plug in engines. And equally importantly, plug in all the skill sets that you have, all the tooling that you have, because the open source community is never going to be able to provide all the tooling that you want. So you want to be able to integrate with the rest of the ecosystem. The key part is we want to make it easy for people to access and compute data and sort of get value from it. So in five years, I mean, we've been basically how it's been in enterprises for five years, a little more than that. And it's changed quite a bit. It's instructive to look at that. It's also instructive to look at what's stayed the same. So five years ago, people were finding valuable uses for it. They were also finding rough edges. And they were working to address those rough edges at the same time as they're getting value from it. Now then it was in very few places. Now it's in most institutions in a small way. It's not deployed across all their systems. I think in five more years, we'll see it widely deployed in most data centers of big institutions, harnessing a good fraction above 10%, certainly, of their data needs and probably considerably more than that. But there'll still be rough edges. That's a sign of a living product. As soon as it's like a road, you add a lane, you just move the bottleneck in the traffic somewhere else. And so we'll still be trying to make certain things easier. I mean, today we talk about the Lambda architecture, but it's not particularly easy. I think by five years, I hope that will be a natural thing that people can easily deploy models that are updated in real time that are also based on lots of historic data that should be done. But there'll be other things people will be asking for. And that'll continue as long as it's, I think, the mainstream technology, which I believe it has the potential to be for decades because of this loosely coupled, non-centralized architecture of the projects. So anyway, we'll still be here. Folks will still be complaining, still be adding features. But I'd say it'll have a lot more actual use in institutions. People today graduating from universities are familiar with it and starting their careers. In five years, those folks will be further along in their careers and will have accepted this as the norm. And it takes time for technology to turn over in institutions, and it takes time for people to turn over, and the two are connected. And so I think we're going to have at least a generation for whom that's the default technology. Absolutely. Well, it's going to be fun to watch. So, guys, thanks so much for joining us on stage today, Rin Murthy, Doug Cutting. Let's give them a hand. Thanks, Jeff. Love you. Jeff, thank you. Thank you for monitoring. Thank you very much. And Doug, in a room, thank you both for doing this, and also for everything you've done for the community and for Apache Hadoop. I want to give these guys a round of applause. These guys are really welcome. Thank you. OK, so now we're going to have Oliver Ratsenberger from Teradata come up. And there's Oliver Renzau's software engineering for Teradata. And as you know, Teradata is one of the providers in the data space, but also very early on in terms of how they thought about Hadoop, the unified data architecture, and how they started to think about how do you start to incorporate Hadoop into the overall data architecture, the data warehouse discovery platforms, et cetera. And Oliver will give an interesting view of how they're looking at the world and what's happening with that, Oliver. Come on out. There we go. Hi, thank you. Here you go. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. My name is Oliver Ratsenberger. I'm with Teradata. I'm responsible for software development for everything that we do with Teradata, AST, or Hadoop integration software components that we write around it. I spent seven years at eBay learning from scratch basically what it means to do big data at scale, responsible for things like the data warehouse, for integration with technologies like Hadoop. And spent two years at Sears taking some of these principles and concepts into a very old retailer. And for the last year, I'm not responsible for Teradata, for software development, really building technologies around the integration of these different technology stacks. You can follow me on Twitter. So let's talk about what most companies are facing today. There's a huge amount of choice, whether it's cloud, whether it's big data, whether it's NoSQL, whether it's Hadoop. There's different distributions. There's different projects within the open source communities. How do I pick? What do I choose? How do I build a foundation for a company? And if you throw large volume big data into a mix, it just gets bigger and larger and more complicated. Sometimes companies think that big data, by adopting big data, you become agile. I think it's actually the other way around. You have to first be agile. You have to first master how to be fast with data and then do it at massive scale in order to be successful. And so let's have a look at what we at Teradata do to make that happen. The architecture that we propose is what we call the unified data architecture. It brings together different technologies. And I have some examples here for you today to show how that actually works and how our customers are using that in their environment. As part of the unified data architecture, the data lake plays a really important role. And Hortonworks and Tatoo 2.1 and Yarn really take the data lake to the next level. For us, the data lake is kind of layer zero in a layer data architecture where you start acquiring data as quickly as possible, as agile as possible, but also with the right metadata and the right tracking lineage in place so that you can come back at a later point in time and remember what you stored actually there. With 2.1, we see Hadoop really moving to the next phase. As Doug and Aaron just said, and we heard earlier today, I think the introduction of Yarn has really opened up Hadoop to become much more general purpose big data platform than it was before. MapRed use had its use cases and had its abilities to do something very simple at a big scale, but it also has quite a bit of boundary and limitations. And I think with Yarn, that moves Hadoop certainly well beyond these limitations and allows us to do new use cases, new abilities, and bring new platforms onto the ecosystem. So what do we at Territor do with Hadoop, and especially with 2.1 and with Yarn? We just recently released a new product that we call Territor query grid. And it's the ability to bring together different platforms natively through a self-service architecture, eliminating the need for manual data transfers and really integrating different types of analytics. And I'm going to have some examples for you that I want to take you through on this. The big difference between traditional data movement and the query grid is that traditional data movement was its tickets, its IT people, its opening firewalls, its exporting files, it's doing it in batch. It's fairly slow, and you can do it maybe once a day, maybe a couple of times a day, but that's basically it. Query grid takes data integration to an entire new level. We do it very dynamic. We do it on demand. We do it in memory. We bring results sets from different processing platforms together where they need to come together where the best capabilities of the platforms are. And we do it from within a very simple workflow.  So let's take a look at how query grid works. I have a little animation here for you that I want to show you that once it plays, let's see if we can get this started here. Oh, no, that's too far. Let's try this again. Can somebody start that animation, please? OK, that is not working. Well, let me tell you what it should be showing you here. What we have done with query grid is we have taken Hadoop and we have taken technologies like Teradata and other technologies and brought them together at a level where if you come and put these two systems on a common interconnect, you can pass down a request for data from within, for example, Teradata into Hadoop. The Hadoop system and the Teradata system will automatically negotiate what is the most scalable way to talk to each other and will at interconnect speeds exchange data on the fly. Now, that can be existing file splits that sit on Hadoop that needs to be brought, for example, into a query for Teradata. And if you have a small system, you get gigabytes per second. If you double that, you get tens of gigabytes a system. If you really scale that out and take that to the limit, you will find that with very, very large clusters, you can move up to 10 terabytes a second between different types of processing clusters. So this is not the old export of file weight a couple of hours for 500 gigabytes of data to be copied somewhere around. This is real-time integration. And the way it works, it also supports pushdown processing. And the example that I have for you here is we support the embedding of, for example, HiveLogic into the pushdown where the Hadoop cluster will first process the Hive query, create the result set, and take that high speed interconnect and bring that data back into memory for further processing. So this combines really very different technologies. So whether it is Teradata and Hadoop, whether it's Teradata to Teradata, procedural off-the-grid processing, traditional SAS or R processing, all brought together in one query grid. And I have an actual example that I want to show you here today. And we heard Tom talk about cars earlier today and about the amount of data that it produces. This is an example here on the missing half of the text here too. This is an example of hybrid cars and electric vehicles, how they are selling within the United States and worldwide. There's a total of more than 3 million battery-assisted or battery-powered vehicles out there. Each of the vehicles has hundreds of sensors. Within the next few years, we'll probably have billions of sensor readings for these vehicles. And the example that I have for you is the following here. What you see here is on the left side, these are one type of hybrid car batteries. The way they look like before they get put into a car, when they work, when they operate, the right side is when something went wrong. It's actually not the most catastrophic way. This is just when they start overheating and when they start buckling. The problem with batteries is that the power density of these batteries has gotten really, really high. And we're approaching cars that will soon have more than 100 kilowatt hour batteries within the vehicle. And the problem with these batteries is that they need to operate in a very narrow operating range. You can't discharge them too far. You can't overcharge them not even once. You can't operate them outside of a certain temperature range. And so naturally, that produces a lot of data. And the example that I have here for you is we want to analyze data that we have from service logs, from service visits, from customers where we download freeze frame data from some of these vehicles and combine it with data that sits in Hadoop. Again, we have half of the slide missing here. Sorry for that. OK, let me see if I can get past this here. OK, none of the slides are coming here right now. OK, so while the technicians try to figure out the small data system in the back here, I'm going to just talk you through that. The example that I have brought for you was actually a single query that from within a single query accesses and joins data that sits on Teradata and within Hadoop. And we have introduced with Teradata 15 the concept of foreign data stores and foreign servers that you can set up for a system that leveraged the high speed interconnect between those systems to exchange data. And once you set them up in your dictionary of the Teradata system, you can access any Hive query, any data set that sits on Hadoop from within the SQL dialect of Teradata. You can even within a derived table put Hive query straight into that query and operate it as a single query workflow. What the system will do is it will pass down the pushdown processing on the Hadoop cluster, create the data splits of the result set, bring them in real time back into temp and spool of the system. And again, we can do that up to 10 terabytes a second at very, very large scale systems and then do the joins with the structured data that already sits in Teradata. And so what used to be multiple people filing tickets, exporting data, waiting for hours to move data between one system to another can now be done from within a single query, from within a single app. It leverages all of the security and workload capabilities that Teradata has because you can wrap every single request that you sent into Hadoop in our workload management framework. OK, it will be cool. So the other thing I'm just, I think, going to give up on the slides here. The other thing that I quickly want to talk about is, so this week we introduced our new Teradata portfolio for Hadoop. We just released Hadoop 2.1 as the first industry appliance out there. Why are we doing appliances for Hadoop, you might ask? For a lot of our customers, it's really a time to market question. I need to be fast. I need to stand up Hadoop cluster. I need to have it in production in a week or two. I cannot take six months, nine months, to learn how all the individual components work of this infrastructure. So what we have done is we have prepackaged up basically Hadoop 2.1 with the workload management capabilities with what we offer query grade from Teradata and packaged it up as a solution that you can roll in and get going within days rather than months. We think that Hadoop 2 is really an important milestone for us in order to integrate the different capabilities of these platforms. And we want to allow our customers to really get an enterprise-ready solution from a single vendor that integrates not only Teradata, not only Aster, but also Hadoop and other technologies for them through our capabilities. With that, one more test. No, we won't get back here. OK, so with that, this is very quick an overview of what we have done at Teradata. Unfortunately, the slides didn't do it any justice here. I welcome you to see us at the booth in the exhibition hall. You can actually see that live demo, and you can actually see the query. There's actually a system installed with Teradata and Hadoop on it. You can see the exact telematics, frame-free stator integrated, and go check it out. And last but not least, I encourage you to check out our Teradata slash careers web page. We are hiring very heavily in the data science and Hadoop space. And so if there's any interest for you to build enterprise-scale technologies, we welcome you to take a look and hope to see you there. OK, thank you. Thank you, Oliver. Appreciate it. OK, so now we're going to do is switch over and go through the view of, as you look at data lakes and you start to see as data is distributed, what are other ways you start to manage it, and how do you look at streams, ponds, et cetera? So with that, I want to bring out Sean Connelly. Sean is VP of Strategy at Hortonworks. He'll be taking you through this. Sean, she'll be coming out on this side. Thank you. Sean, welcome. Always good. Sean's always entertaining, so I know we're in for a treat here. There you go, Sean. Put the pressure on me, Herb. Welcome, everybody, to Hadoop Summit 2014. It's definitely grown very large. I thought it was great to see Doug and Arun on stage earlier, really talking about the genesis of where all this started. I joked with both of them back in the green room beforehand. I think what would have made it a little more exciting is if they were dressed up in those like big, giant sumo costumes and they bounced off each other. So we didn't get that part of the show or story, but definitely hopefully people came away with something to think about. As far as my journey into this enterprise Hadoop space, I joined Hortonworks towards the tail end of 2011. And people talk about traditional Hadoop versus this yarn-enabled wave that's upon us. But if I reflect back on just even in 2011, 2012, where things started, some of the sentiment when people are truly trying to wrap their heads around Hadoop in this broader ecosystem of technology is it wasn't a thing, it's a bunch of stuff.  My favorite was a bunch of animals in the zoo, including the zookeeper with his shovel and things like that.  And then really the sentiment around that was people trying to envision, is this going to become a platform that will be relevant to mainstream? And there was a sentiment of nothing at the center that kind of holds it all together like an operating system. So hopefully between yesterday and today, if we focused on something, yarn has fundamentally changed how we think about Hadoop. And I just couldn't help myself on this Batman meme. Somebody posted one of these, I think, like nine months ago. And I bookmarked it in my head. I was like, I have to use it for this audience today. But basically, yarn is about enabling more workloads, more data, and more value. And so we talk about batch interactive real-time workloads. And I think fundamentally people are very familiar with traditional Hadoop around the batch workloads. And we talk a lot about interactive and real-time. And so Hadoop does interactive and real-time. And while I'm another person from the East Coast and I'm not from Missouri, I do have a healthy dose of show-me when we talk about things like interactive and real-time. So I tend to like to head to the demo kitchen when we talk about these new things. And so at this point, I'd like to bring up George Vedicaddin, who's from the Work Solution Engineering team. So George, everybody welcome George to the stage. We're going to allow George to get set up in his demo. So while I allow him to sort of get his demo functioning and those types of things, let me set the context for what the demo is going to cover. And again, I really want to change the thinking on how we think about Hadoop. It does interactive and real-time. And so setting the stages, we have got a trucking company with a large fleet of trucks in the Midwest. A truck generates millions of events. Some of those events are normal events, start, stop. Others are violation events. Speeding, driving too close, weaving in and out, those types of things. And the company uses an application, a real-time application. It's actually a map view as well as a table view, and we'll see shortly, where they monitor the trucks on their routes as they're driving and track the real-time violations. And so the dots that represent the trucks, you'll see them getting bigger if there are more violation events versus normal events. As far as the interactive part of it, as far as interactive querying, all that history for months and months is stored so we can do some analysis around, are there certain routes that cause issues over time or trucks and maintenance issues or are there drivers that are at an issue as well? So there's an interactive querying piece of the demo. If we look at the ingredients of the demo and we'll go back through, nice, crash. If we go back to the ingredients of the demo on a way for the screen to come back is we basically have Hadoop and Yarn at the basis, right? And we have our really cool trucks that are emitting their events. Those events flow into Kafka, which is a sort of an inbound messaging system. It will route the events down into Apache Storm for the real-time stream processing and event. It'll store those events directly in the HDFS for our historical view. But also it will funnel the events over to HBase for populating a tab review of a couple of days worth of data or what have you. So you have the most recent history that you can report on and then alerts will go up through, in this case, we're using ActiveMQ to deliver to a real-time mapping application the dots, the locations of the trucks, as well as the violation events on those trucks. And then on the flip side, we'll look at interactive query with the Hive 13 on Tez to interact with, I think it's over a terabyte of data. And again, this is a live demo that's hitting sort of a back end. So always fingers crossed whenever you do live demo. And we'll be using Excel and PowerView in order to ask questions of the data from an interactive query perspective. So with that, I wanna hand things over to Chef George here. He makes a good meal, as I understand it, not only in the demo, but he's from the Chicago area and they actually have good food in that area. So George, I'll hand it over to you and you'll walk us through things. Sure, thanks, Sean. All right, let's get the map up. And those trucks are moving really fast. All right, so what you're seeing here is a web application, a real time dashboard, right? And that's powered completely by Hadoop and by Yarn. And this web application is actually used by a trucking company's support team to monitor these fleet of trucks in real time. So each of these circles that you guys are seeing represents individual trucks on different routes, somewhere in the Midwest region. And I know the trucks are moving fast. That's the point of the demo, guys, okay? So whenever a violation event occurs, and a violation event could be speeding or unusual tail distance and those kind of things, an infraction event gets immediately generated and rendered through this application, okay? And if you notice in particular, there's one circle, the brown circle, that's considerably larger than the rest. And what that indicates is that this particular driver is significantly, has an increased number of violations over a shorter period of time. And it needs to be closely monitored. So this real time view into the driver's activities and into the truck's activities, right, is completely managed and powered by storm. Every event that's generated by the truck flows through the storm topology. And what storm does is it listens and filters for certain of these violation events and pushes it to the web application. It also has business rules configured such if the number of violations for a given truck exceeds a certain threshold, then it pushes out alerts. And this web application subscribes to those alerts and renders those alerts by increasing the radius of the circle. So if you look carefully, that particular brown circle, there's a message to the end user, to the support system that we need to contact that driver immediately. So let's go and do that, right? So let's say the contact team radios to the truck driver and says, what's going on? I see an increase in terms of the number of violations. And the driver says, these violations are not because of me, but because it's the route and the truck you've given me. The truck is old, it needs to be serviced and that's the reason for these violations. So the analyst teams at this trucking company has some root analysis it needs to do. What is the cause? Is it the truck? Is it the route? Or is it the driver himself? So let's answer these questions by using a BI tool that almost everyone in this room is familiar with, Microsoft Excel. So I'm gonna switch to that view. So one of the first things I'm gonna do within Excel is I'm actually gonna connect to the Hadoop cluster and I'm gonna execute an interactive query using Hive on Tes where I wanna have all of the violations that have occurred within the last six months. So the first step is selecting the data source. The second step here is selecting the table where all of the events have existed for the last six months. And then the third step is applying my predicate filters. So I wanna capture every event that is a violation event. And I'm gonna go ahead and execute this query. It's important to know that this query is actually executing on the Hadoop cluster itself. And the result set that I get back is what you guys see in this Excel sheet, right? So keep in mind the results came back so quickly because we're taking advantage of the new interactive query engine, Tes, that you've heard a number of folks talk about. So now we've got the data set. So what's the first question we need to ask? Are there specific routes that are more susceptible to violations? So to answer this question, we're gonna use a capability in Excel called PowerView Maps. It's a data visualization exploration tool. And what I've done here in this view is for every violation in the last six months, I've mapped it onto this map based on the lat and long coordinates of where that violation occurred. So you see things for St. Louis to Memphis, Springfield to Columbia, Springfield to Columbia, another route and so forth. And what you can infer from this is that there is not one specific route that seems to incur more violation than others. The answer to our first question is no. Seems like all of these routes are equal opportunity offending routes. So let's go to the second question. Are there a subset of trucks that are more troublesome than others? So the view that you see here on the x-axis is the trucks and the y-axis represents all of the violations that came from that specific truck over the last six months. And as you can tell, there's definitely a subset of trucks that seem to have an increased number of violations. That's good. So our next question then becomes, are there specific individuals who are driving these trucks that are causing a majority of these violations? To answer this question, what we can do is we can impose the driver data on top of this view. So let's go ahead and do that. If you look at this, there's a couple of things that are very telling. First, for the subset of trucks that caused a lot of violations, there was a number of drivers that drove that truck. The second was, there's one driver in particular that caused a majority of those violations across all those trucks. And this driver is what's represented here in green. So it wasn't the route, it wasn't the truck, it was the driver across a number of violations, across a number of trucks that have caused the most amount of violations. I think we found our rogue driver. Absolutely, thanks a lot, George. I think you illustrated a little bit around the real-time and interactive nature of things. And if we have a key takeaway here, and my inner child always comes in the place, the key takeaway is watch out for that rogue driver. Just a little inside baseball for you guys. I think I just threw George under the truck, so to speak. That's George's boss, Jamie Angiser, the rogue driver. So watch out for him, I think he's here. All right. But no, the real takeaway is, yarn enables the broadest set of use cases. And we just saw a set of use cases that if you think about Hadoop from a traditional perspective, you wouldn't have thought of before. And so interactive SQL, no SQL, streaming, search, in-memory, machine learning, and interactive analytics with Spark, all these types of workloads come in, not only open source, but we also heard from some of the other commercial vendors about the excitement of plugging in their unique data access engines to get the benefit of data locality and running native in the cluster against all this data that they may bring in, but also interact with on broader analytic use cases, right? So common data, many apps, and an architectural center provided by yarn to bring it all together so you can run it all in one spot if you choose to do so. So when I think of enterprise Hadoop versus traditional Hadoop, I think of more of a blueprint for that, where yarn is definitely at the center, you have the access and data management capabilities that surround it. But this is why these notions of governance and security and operations are pretty important, and I'll get into some of that in a little bit, as well as the applications that you build on top of, and how does enterprise Hadoop integrate into the data center with the existing investments, other data systems that you may wanna plug it into, either on the inbound or outbound side, and how do you light up existing skills, whether you're a SaaS user, a SQL user, or in this case of the demo Excel type user, right? You wanna democratize the access to as many people in as familiar way as possible. So surrounding the core with enterprise capabilities is important.


I'm Steve Morrison from CSIS. I'm going to do some quick welcoming and introductory remarks for our guest of honor here, Jay Bryan Atwood, chair of the OECD Development Assistance Committee. And then my colleague, Dan Rundie, is going to moderate a discussion. And it will give you an opportunity over the course of this event to offer some comments and questions. Bryan's familiar to many of us here as a friend, as a leader, and a person who's inspired many of our careers over the last several decades in the various different incarnations that he has had. He came to this DAC job in January of this year, and we'll have a great opportunity today, Bryan, to hear from you as to your reflections on reinventing and moving DAC forward in the lead-up to Pusan and in the midst of this changing world of the emerging powers and budget crises and the like. Bryan, for the eight or nine years prior to that, was dean of the Hubert Humphrey School of Public Affairs, the University of Minnesota, and had a dramatic impact there in invigorating the programs, building the visibility and reputation of that major institution from 1993 to 1999, which is when many of us got to know Bryan and admire him most passionately was when he was leading USAID under the Clinton administration. And that period bore some sort of haunting similarities to the period that we face here today. I just want to remind folks that this was a period in which there was a budget crisis. There was acute political polarization and split government. There was a humanitarian spike. We were at the end of a Cold War era, and there was a proliferation of new demands and the need for new instruments like the Office of Transition Initiatives and other different capacities on the civilian military side of things. There were failed states that we didn't really know how to deal with, and there was an emerging new political reality. Some of those are very much still with us in terms of demands around how do we cope in this period? And so I think we are all very grateful to Bryan for defending the development agenda, moving the institutions forward, and creating that voice and leadership that is so vital in this town and beyond in reminding people of the development mission and the value and the leadership that the United States brings to this. His other contributions as a diplomat, as the Under Secretary for Management Affairs, and prior to that as an Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations, as I said, as an academic leader, a public policy leader, and working for a period of three years with Joe Kennedy at the Citizens Energy Initiative out of Boston. So please join me in welcoming Bryan Atwood. Thank you so much, Bryan, for being with us today. We're very grateful. It's wonderful to see you. Yeah, okay. Great, thank you. Thank you very much, Steve. And it really is a pleasure to have you, Bryan, with us. A very good friend of mine who's a Senior Foreign Service Officer says about you that you saved AID, you saved the agency, and I think that reflects the feelings of many people in the development community. So thank you for your service at AID. And I think when people hear that you're in town, people want to visit with you. And I think it reflects the gratitude that people have for your service at AID and also your ongoing leadership in the development community. This is a very interesting time to have you come to Washington. You're leading, as I was saying earlier, I consider the DAC to be the Major League Baseball Commission for Foreign Assistance. And for European audiences, I call it the FIFA of Foreign Assistance. So for it to, but I think there's been a number of, over time there've been a series of emerging donors. I think if you said that to folks in the global South, you'd get sort of a elicit, a sort of a variety of reactions. They'll say we've been supporting South-South cooperation for forever. And why do you say we're emerging or we're new? Or non-traditional? And so you find all sorts of labels that become sort of awkward quickly. But perhaps what might be interesting is for us just to get a sense of what the DAC does more generally. I know you were another organization earlier this morning. So I know at the risk of being repetitive, perhaps just sharing what the DAC is just a little bit. And then if we could talk a little bit about the what you're doing with these emerging donors, people often talk about China, but you were saying earlier that I mean, Turkey and many others have very significant programs that we can have a conversation about that. I think that would be, I think very timely. So yeah. Well, it's great to be here. And there are some wonderful veterans of the period when I worked at AID, including Mark Schneider over there and Steve Morrison really made with Rick Barton made OTI work. It was a great Bill Garvalink is here.  But this is a fascinating time. I guess it's always a fascinating time to come to Washington. It's disturbing to see what's going on here in many ways, but you know, this too will pass. And I believe that sanity will return and we'll get through this period the problem obviously is the polarization and the inclination to sort of drive up to the cliff and look over and see whether or not we want to take the economy with us. But that's just an editorial comment. I'm here to do the peer review of the United States aid program and the program continues. I'm not going to go into that at length. I want to talk more about the engagement strategy of the DAC, which is what you've asked me to talk about, but basically the aid program has been improving, obviously the presidential directive and the QDDR have produced at least all of the right intentions. And those intentions relate to the agenda for aid effectiveness, the Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action basically talk about principles that produce development results, the principle of country ownership and aligning with country strategies and harmonization, having a predictable aid program. All of these things we have done an evaluation that demonstrates with evidence that if you do these things you're going to produce results. And that I think is what everyone wants and that isn't a partisan issue.  The time, coming into the DAC at this time there were a lot of people who really care about development that say, gee, the DAC isn't as relevant as it used to be. Why? Because there are so many other donors out there. They're private donors. There's a good deal of activity on the corporate responsibility front. There's a lot of public-private partnerships and then there are the emerging economies that are increasingly providing assistance. More and more international organizations, more and more private organizations are providing aid. There's more ODA type aid out there than ever before and there's a lot of aid that doesn't qualify for ODA but that does have a development impact. The problem is that it's terribly fragmented and we don't know what a lot of people are doing. We don't know what the Chinese and the Brazilians and the Indians are doing. And the one thing that we all have in common is that we've endorsed the Millennium Development Goals. Every country has endorsed the Millennium Development Goals. So while they may be deficient in some important ways, they're what unites. We are now sort of judged by the extent to which we can reach those goals and we're not doing very well on many of them. And so what's the reason for that? Well, the fragmentation that exists on the international scene is probably wasting between 30 and 40% of all of the resources that are being applied. It's the transaction costs. It's the fact that we don't coordinate, that we don't know what another donor may be doing in the same country and we've got to fix that. I mean, that's the problem that we face in going to Busan, Korea, a very important city. Those of you who are old enough to remember that that's where most of the humanitarian assistance went into Korea during the Korean War. There's a cemetery dedicated to the UN forces, including many Americans that are buried there. And it's now a very modern city. It's a fascinating city. I visited it three or four months ago and they held the APEC summit there in 2005 and it's right on the ocean in the big port and the Koreans are very proud of it and they should be. Holding it in Korea is an important symbolic factor as well because the Koreans in 1961 had a per capita income of $70 and they have made major progress. And every Korean that you talk to is very proud of the fact that they remember being fed with USAID food and received an education and health care and other things from the United States and from other donors. So they have recently within the last year become a member of the DAC. They are now a major donor. They are in the major leagues and they're very, very proud of that and they're very proud of the fact that at the G20 meeting in Seoul last year, they pushed for a new consensus on development and it was signed on to by the Chinese. It was signed on to by all the G20 partners. And the development committee of the G20 meets frequently to prepare for the meeting in Paris. I mean, sorry, in Cannes that's coming up just three weeks before the Busan meeting. And there will be clearly an effort to try to link these two very important events. Now, the working party on aid effectiveness which is a part of the OECD DAC has some 90 members. They all represent constituencies. They represent the Nordic plus region. They represent Africa. They represent Latin America. And half of the members are from developing countries. And what's happened in the last eight years since the first of this series of forums on aid effectiveness is that we've educated ourselves on what's important. We started at Rome where the focus was mainly on harmonization, not imposing all of these reporting requirements on countries, haven't made a lot of progress there. We then went to the Paris principles that I've already talked about and then to Accra, the Accra gender for action in 2008. We've been, I mentioned before doing an evaluation and we know that these principles work, but there's also a survey now, 91 developing countries have contributed to this survey. And the pressures that are kind of, there are two kinds of pressures that are gonna be working at Busan. One is from the developing countries who say we want to own our own programs. And if you think we don't have the capacity to do it, you need to help us develop that capacity. The other is from the national leaders of the G20 of that variety who are saying the major global problems that we face can't be solved without development. We can't solve the climate change problem without development. We can't solve the health problems, the infectious disease problems without development, the global commons. We can't solve the security problems without development and we certainly can't solve the food problems and the volatility of food prices if we don't have a development input. I'm not saying it's the exclusive input, but it becomes so important to these national leaders that they get comprehensive solutions that they can agree to at the G20 level and beyond. The OECD is contributing in a major way to that because it's one of the more important government policy think tanks, if you will. It's not more than that. It's a place where if governments can agree they can create essentially soft law that influences people's behavior. I mean, we have, for example, laws related now to have been adopted here in this country to the minerals that come from conflict zones. Bill knows about this, having been ambassador to Congo. And we're trying, as best we can, to clean up those transmission belts that to make sure that the bad guys aren't taking advantage of that. So I get to the DAC and there are people writing articles saying, is the DAC really relevant anymore? Well, we had contributed $130 billion worth of ODA in 2010. All of the other emerging donors, probably total about $20 billion. Private sector may be another $20 or $30 billion. We don't know how much is going out in remittances and certainly corporate responsibility can be credited with some as well. But the DAC is still at the center of all of this, but how does it reach out? How does it engage? We've done a lot of things. We created something called the International Dialogue, which involves 40 countries, some of the lowest income countries in the world. They came together in Timor and Dealey and in Bogota, Columbia, and then most recently in Liberia. And they themselves, 17 of those countries declared themselves to be fragile states and said, we don't have any chance of making, of achieving the MDGs. So we basically wanna be measured by a different measuring stick. And they basically passed a resolution, all 17 said they will take this to Busan. We are fragile states and we want capacity. We need security so that our people will feel confident that the government is going to protect them. A number of things that they've agreed to do that I think are very important. We hadn't seen the Arab donors for 20 years at a high level. We, about a month ago, had a meeting with all of the Arab donors at the Lancaster House in London. I was quite surprised because we planned this meeting for a period of time. And I wasn't quite sure about how to introduce the subject that the G8 hit right on the head, which is we wanna see democracy in the Middle East. And I wasn't so sure how enthusiastic they would be about that. But in fact, we added an agenda item that said the issue of legitimacy. And they wanted to talk about corruption in their region. They wanted to talk about democracy. And they came to London with the notion that this is irreversible and that we need to get on board. And we're gonna put our money behind it. And I won't tell you, they've got a lot of money. Seen the price of oil recently. What came out of that meeting was an agreement that they would share statistics with the DAC, that they would give us detailed statistics about what they're doing in individual countries. And they're working not just in their region, but in other regions as well. And an agreement that they would meet with us to talk about a common position at Busan. So you add up all of these things, the international dialogue, the working party on aid effectiveness, the China DAC study group. This meeting with the Arab donors. And you're beginning to see how we're pulling this together to reach what I call the common ground agreement. I'm not saying that we're gonna come out of Busan with night turning into day. What I'm saying is that we're going to rationalize the international system. That we're gonna put everyone on a path toward 2015. Now, it's a journey, it isn't a destination. It is gonna take a while before the peer pressure is brought to bear. Right now, the Chinese say, we're very proud of our traditions. We do South-South cooperation. We think that that's an important supplement to North-South cooperation. I think we've already gotten beyond the issue of the charge that somehow North-South cooperation is just a way for the West to impose its values on us. That is no longer being talked about. We are saying, we said in the DAC statement that we issued, it's a unilateral statement by the 24 members of the DAC, that we welcome a dialogue with you without preconditions. We don't expect you to become members. We don't expect you to share statistics. We honor your tradition of South-South cooperation, but we need to have a dialogue because we share the MDGs and we share the desire for results. The big issue here for many of these middle-income countries is that they have become donors. They ironically don't like that word and they want to be called providers of assistance. Too many people say that the DAC is just the donor's club, so maybe that word has gotten out of currency. But their worry is, and you put your finger on it earlier, their worry is that they will no longer be able to be recipients. And there are countries that are saying, look, you've had growth rates of eight to 10 to 12%. You don't need foreign assistance any longer, yet there is more poverty that exists in those emerging economies than all of Africa combined. So we have to work in those countries and we're saying to them, it doesn't matter. It doesn't legally affect you in any way. You can still be recipients and we're trying basically to eliminate those words because they tend to polarize. So that's it. I'm sorry to go on so long. No, this is absolutely fascinating. This is exactly the kind of conversation we're hoping to have with you. Just a couple of topics I wanted to double-click on, if you will. One is talk a little bit about how the China Study Group came about. You referred to it a little bit, but if you could just talk a little bit about that because there's certainly a lot of energy in Washington and elsewhere about, oh, the various ways in which China is in a variety of places. And I know historically they've been reluctant to engage with the DAC. And I think some of the way you've described it, I think reflects some of the sensitivities, I think. If you could just talk a little bit more about that and then if you could talk about, I know that you've also instituted some form of structured engagement with the Gates Foundation. Could you talk a little bit about that as well? Yeah, there really is a very enterprising USAID official who is based in Beijing who came up with the idea that we ought to have this DAC Study Group. And she's done a wonderful job. And it's an interesting thing. I used to argue with Mark Schneider that we couldn't afford to keep sort of development diplomats in places because they really didn't have money or programs. But frankly, with the expertise that some of our development professionals have, they can engage. And she started engaging with the Chinese. The Chinese, as anyone who's worked with them know, have a real thirst for knowledge. And they really wanted to know more about this. They have, in essence, a foundation model for their development programs. Now you can be really cynical and say yeah, and they're very well aware and very sensitive to the charges that are made that it's all about commercial interests. It's all about foreign policy interest and the like. So they're very sensitive. They become even more sensitive because there are other issues that are causing tensions with the middle income countries and with the developing countries involving their currency level, involving frankly the human rights issues that are raised. There are tensions that they don't like and they don't want. And now the developing countries, all of a sudden, aren't just satisfied with non-interference. Basically, their foundation model was you give us a proposal, we'll not only give you the money, we'll give you the labor. Well, that got old too. I mean, and the developing countries are now embracing this notion of development cooperation. They want a partnership. They don't want to be handed a check that nobody knows about. They don't want Chinese laborers coming into the country doing all the work. They'd like to learn how to do some of this work themselves. I know that's caused them some trouble in Africa, right? I think there's been a lot of blowback. Well, in some cases they've sent prisoners over to do this work and that's not too cool. But they're changing. I mean, the fact that they've gone public with their program and justified it on television and set up a website so that people can respond to it is an indication that they're prepared to justify the expenditure of taxpayers' money to their taxpayers. It isn't easy, so they're gonna have to show that they've made good investments. So they wanna know from us, how do you evaluate these programs? What are you doing? And there are a lot of young people that are coming to school at places like the Humphrey School that really want to learn, take the master's degree in development practice. There's a big change. And it's true in India and it's true in Brazil and a lot of other countries. These countries, as the former deputy secretary general knows, are what we call the EE-5 within the OECD, the enhanced engagement countries. The countries that we would like to see join the OECD. And they certainly qualify in many ways. The most recent country to become an accession country, as we call it in OECD, was Russia. And they've signed at the ministerial meeting in May, the Antibribery Treaty, which was one of the conditions. They haven't met all the conditions, but Russia is an accession country. So there's a lot of effort to try to, there's so much they can learn from the OECD countries and from the various directorates of the OECD. Are they members of the, they're not members of the DAC, but do they have some sort of structured engagement with you? There's a structured engagement in that they're invited to most of the meetings of the council. There are many of the committees have approval to invite them to their meetings. And so, and there's much to be learned from them too. I mean, if you look at Brazil's agricultural development, we can learn from them as well as the other way around. So they're very much engaged at this point. Just how about Russia? How about in terms of engaging, engaging with Russia with the DAC? Can you talk a little bit about that? Before I got to the DAC, there was a meeting in Russia by minister Kudrin, one of the, I don't know how one would characterize him, but he's very good at what he does. I was gonna say liberal or conservative or whatever, and I won't say that. But he invited all of the bricks, but he also invited the DAC chair and the World Bank president to their meeting in Moscow. So once again, I mean, the bricks just met again in Beijing. They didn't invite us. I suspect the reason that they didn't invite us is because they wanna get together and decide what their common position would be at Busan. Just guessing, but I think that's what's happening. There's just a lot of pressure on them to come to Busan with an enlightened position. We'll see how far they'll go. Just try to describe the preamble or the declaration of Busan will not only commit countries to being more transparent with one another, to coordinate better, to do all of the things, many of the things that the Paris Declaration calls for, but it will then say that we will have differentiated responsibilities or words to that effect, different roles, different approaches, division of labor, whatever. Then the rest of the agreement will define that. It might be a separate section on South-South cooperation, which was one of the clusters that met under the Working Party. And then there might be a separate section on civil society because the civil society organizations will be there big time at Busan and they've organized themselves better than ever before to make a statement. The Arabs may want to make a separate statement, but there's no reason why this can't become part of a more rational international system. Just going back, the question about the Gates Foundation, I know you have some sort of a formal, structural relationship with them. Not formal, but we've invited them to meetings. They came to our senior level meeting and they just came to the Tidewater meeting. And it's very hard to ignore them. Maybe they're $5 billion a year, it's sort of in grants. Maybe not quite that high, but high. Almost, right. And they're doing some really innovative things in the field. And I mean, there are members of the DAC that don't provide as much money as the Gates Foundation. I was thinking about when the Buffett gift fully kicks in, it's gonna be something like that. I think that it's coming close to hitting that number. It's kind of, and AFD, I think at one point, the French aid agency just several years ago was almost $5 billion. So it's sort of a medium sized, it's sort of Switzerland or Austria or something along those lines. So it's a significant player in the system. We should probably open it up. There are a lot of thoughtful people in the audience that I'd like to hear from, but I wanna first call on my friend and colleague, Thelma Aske, and she's up in the front row. So I'm gonna ask Lauren if you'd come up. I'll give Thelma Aske the first word. Thank you, Dan. It's great to see you, Thraowen. It was interesting you talked about OECD relevance at the DAC level, but it's certainly a discussion that goes on at the OECD a lot because it's often a conflict of the developed countries and how the developing countries can relate to this organization that's developed countries. But if any place that can happen is certainly at the DAC. And I think you also touched on the fact that these larger E5 countries, as I used to say, the Beaks, Brazil, India, Indonesia, China, and South Africa because Russia is an accession country and treated somewhat differently. But in a lot of areas outside of the development area, they're concerned about how they're gonna be defined if they cozy up too closely to the OECD. So I think DAC really has an opportunity there to find a way for that cooperation on the development side because it can help define how they relate to an organization of developed countries without giving up their developmental status. And I'd like to hear you comment a little bit more on what the DAC might be able to do on results measurements because it seems like this drive for accountability and for knowing that to get good results in the end and become more and more important as the dollars drop off on the government side and the Gates Foundation and others have that more in their mind because they come from a business orientation. But perhaps you can comment a little bit more about how you see DAC providing some guidance in that area as well as in the kind of technology and expertise transfer that business can provide if they are brought into the development process. Thanks, ma'am. Good. Well, we've done a lot of work on this because while we tried very hard in the 90s to put in place a business model that emphasized results, it's never been more salient in political terms than it is now. I mean, everyone has to demonstrate that they're using the taxpayers' money. And so the interesting issue is whether this is going to cause countries to only go to the middle income or higher income countries where they have a good, there is capacity and they can have a good partnership and they can show results. And will that leave eight orphans that don't have that kind of assistance? Are people willing as they measure results to take risks? And that's, there's a lot of discussion about risk management in fragile states that's going on right now at the same time as this discussion about results. But the whole issue of results, we had a long discussion last week at the Tidewater meeting is really complex. I mean, it's a question of attribution. You have a number of donors working in a country. The country itself is contributing a great deal to the development process. How do you attribute the percentage of results that you're getting from your taxpayers' dollars? Well, the one answer to that question is to make sure that the country itself has the capacity to measure results, that you're measuring results against their strategies. That there's still some distance to travel. Then the question becomes results within what timeframe? I mean, it becomes very complex. Then the issue is how do you set yourself up to communicate with your people and with the people of that country to report those results so that there's more confidence that in fact the money's being spent well? These are issues that everyone's struggling with. Maybe the British have come up with better answers by setting them themselves benchmarks. What the DAC does is to take the best practices of each of these countries, including the World Bank and all of the other organizations because while the bilaterals are primarily members of the DAC, the multilaterals are observers. They come to all of our meetings. The World Bank is there. Now we have just invited all the regional banks to join as observers. So we'll get that perspective as well. And everyone is struggling with this. It isn't an easy answer, but I would say the UK has done better. Andrew Mitchell was saying the other day that the poll results for the Conservative Party have gone up and much of the increase before Murdoch, but much of the increase is because they're running a very efficient aid program. And every other government department is now being forced to take their own value for money approach to what they do. I think that's interesting. It's always the foreign aid program, if you will, I hate the word aid, but that is under the gun and being scrutinized more than any other. I mean, frankly, in this city, I don't think there's a terrible amount of scrutiny going on about the defense budget. I mean, you don't have the same controversies about it, and yet you probably could go over and open closets and money will fall out in the Pentagon. Who cares? I mean, it's going for security. But that's why I think that the management of aid programs can be a lesson for the rest of government. And I think in this case, we've made more progress. What we do is simply share the information. If we can come up with a consensus on the indicators that need to be used that are common indicators, that's what we're trying to do. And I think we can really contribute to this debate. Let me call this, my friend Bob Berg who's in the third row here. This is a delicious order to the Society for International Development Conference over the next two days of the Army Charming Band is chairing, so thank you for that. You all are welcome. The, Brian, I've always heard about what a rational aid system might look like, but it's always seemed to me a little bit like heaven. I mean, we have our own images, but we're getting few direct reports of what it actually looks like. I've got a very distinct picture of what mine looks like. It's lots of steak and dulcet de leche and cigars. Probably better informed than I am, but maybe more deserving. So I'm wondering at Busan, whether you're going to have best cases of a rationalized program or you have an image that people can really grab, hold on, of what this will look like, how it might operate and so give us your heavenly. Yeah, I mean, democracy is an aspiration too, right? I mean, no one is going to reach perfection and certainly not at Busan, but there will be, it's a system, there are three days where the principal speakers will be on the second day and I'm hopeful that we'll get people like Bunky Moon and Hillary Clinton and others to come to this meeting. And that depends on the amount of progress we make between now and then, because I don't think they want to go to a meeting where there isn't a pretty solid agreement before they get there. But we will have something called a building block exercise where there will be side events where people will be able to show off what they think are their best practices. And we've encouraged donor countries to partner with developing countries in putting on these events. One event could involve a very well-known former prime minister who is working with fragile states that may involve people like Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and President Kagami of Rwanda and the president of Sierra Leone. There may be, there'll be events like that that will show off and explain approaches that have worked. So the, you know, again, coming out of this with a more rational system is a pretty low standard because it couldn't be less rational. It couldn't be any less rational coming out of Busan but my expectation is much higher than that and I think we can come up with something that will lead. Again, we're all on different paths now. We're not, even though we've all agreed on the MDGs, we're not on the same path. I just think the most, the biggest aspiration I have is to get everyone heading in the same direction. So we're talking to one another because if we get to 2015 and there's no international agreement, no global agreement on what our goals are then we're in trouble. I mean, it will not help the development mission if we're not, if we get there in that form, in that shape. Mark Schneider over here. Brian, the World Development Report this year on conflict, security, and development. For the World Bank anyway, there was a fairly significant shift to focus on the conflict issue as a major obstacle to development, achieving development goals. I'm curious whether, to what degree, the DAC has focused on their conclusions and also whether you see a significant shift in the way the DAC countries are organizing aid programs to deal with the question of conflict prevention. Thank you for asking that question, Mark. Because I think if you read carefully the World Development Report of the World Bank, they will have cited many, many passages from the NCAF guidelines on post-conflict situations which were produced by the DAC. It's our international network on conflict and fragility that has been meeting for years now and produced much of the information that was in the World Bank report. I think OECD is always happy to share information with the World Bank and make the bank look good. And in this case, the World Development Report added much to the NCAF recommendations as well. But now, that's a really important working party of the DAC, this international network on conflict and fragility. And it involves trying to understand the 3D concept and better, it involves various guidelines about how to operate in these situations and obviously it's contextual. You can't just apply the guidelines in every situation but it's a very good report and it came out just before the World Bank's report. It's, unfortunately, it becomes focused because of all of the fragile states and all donors are struggling with this issue of how to manage risk. And there's obviously a continuum from failed state Somalia which is now going through to terrible famine to a fragile state where, for example, Liberia, where I was for the meeting of this NCAF international dialogue and you've got in Liberia a good example. I mean, there's an election coming up in Liberia. That could create a shock for the society. It has to be managed well. The price of rice went up by 40% in the few weeks before we got there. That's another possible shock to that economy and to that society. And so what I think is recommended in the World Development Report and in the NCAF literature is trying to find buffers against these shocks that could cause a fragile state to fall back into a failed state. I'm calling my colleague Joanne Inesov. Hi, good afternoon. You mentioned earlier today that Turkey I think is giving about a billion dollars annually in assistance. And I wanted to ask if you could say a little bit more about that. Is it, who is it going to in terms of what countries and what types of assistance is it a lot of capacity building or is it emergency relief? If you could just talk a little bit more about that, it would be very interesting. They have a relatively new aid program and a lot of it is going to the region around them. And that's why Turkey becomes such an important country with respect to the Arab Spring and what's happening there. Clearly a lot of it is going through multilateral organizations because they haven't yet developed the capacity to do a lot of the programming on their own. But they are reporting statistics to us now, the DAC. And I believe that they're ready to ask for membership in the DAC. And it involves a qualitative assessment of their program. But if they're willing to subject themselves to peer reviews and to provide their statistics, I think they should be members of the DAC. And they'll improve their program as time goes on. So what I'm trying to do on the accession question is to put the bias in the other direction. If a country is willing to do the peer reviews and all of that, they should be in rather than out. Now the other question that's raised in terms of our accession within the DAC now, not the OECD, but because Turkey's already a member of the OECD. It raises the question of whether a recipient can be a DAC member. Now we've never had a policy against it. We've had a practice of not having recipients be members of DAC. Well, Turkey is still a recipient. But I'm confident that we're going to reverse that practice and invite Turkey in. Let me give Steve Morse the last word. I would think you could argue that in the next several years folks are gonna be looking at the DAC and saying that one of the biggest tests is to what degree China's policies and practices on development have changed in the next few years. And the ability of the DAC and the DAC membership and the constituency that it represents to engineer some changes in those, in that dialogue and in those practices and policies. What do you think the two or three milestones are that you're looking for in the next, say, three to five years that would tell us that there's significant progress in moving in that direction? Milestones involve transparency. If they really are serious about coordinating, they will share more information about what they're doing. And another milestone involves triangular work, working with other donors. And a lot of that has happened already. The US AID has worked with China and Liberia and other places. Same with Brazil. There've been programs with the UK and India. I mean, there's a lot more triangular work than we even know about because the last time we looked at it was 2008. And I think we not only have to do an assessment of that triangular work again, but really analyze it to see whether strengths and weaknesses of that are. But that's a learning process when you're working with another donor. So they'll be willing to do more of that. That's helpful. If they begin to transform themselves from the foundation model that they have now to a more classic development agency, which they want to do, but they don't really have the capacity to do it. We need to know more information about their XM loans. Are they concessional? And do they have a subsidy involved? In other words, are they DACA-able? They qualify for ODA. We don't know anything about it. We were told when we were there that their program is being increased to $10 billion US dollars. A big increase. And they're worried about it because they don't know how to handle it. They know they can't keep just sending workers over to do the projects. They know they're going to have to engage in a partnership. They know that non-interference isn't enough. They've got to do more. So I think that we can watch that as we proceed. And if they want, if they're willing to engage us and they seem to be in a discussion about what replaces the MDGs, I think that's another positive sign. Brian, thank you so much for being with us. Please join me in thanking Brian Atwood. Thank you very much.