My name is Alois a bit of my background. So usually it like to start my talks Why you should actually even listen to me so even though what I'm talking about so some background Regarding open source and myself I was running a lot of our community and standardization activities at Dynatris early on initially We started to do a lot in W3C more than the standards development and Influencing some development on the browser side then we started to engage more and more into open source Which then led to like creating the first dedicated open source team Which we then kept growing and as we kept growing it We established an entire business unit that at Dynatris is responsible for open source Bit more details on what we're doing there before but it's really was taking it from zero To a reasonable number of people who are fully dedicated to open source Today's talk is about beyond Ospo's The idea is really that by the definition and what I learned talking to a lot of people who ran Ospo's a lot of this Was triggered by the Linux Foundation member summit conversations I had last year in Lake Tahoe That we kind of like follow a bit of a different approach and we kind of took it to a next level and wanted to do more Than many Ospo's do today give you some background Why we're doing it how we structure it and how we actually made it work also doing this a bit under the Idea of like we have some additional economic pressure right now like how to justify the value of the work we're doing in open source How to a position it inside a company and also how do I do it in a company? Where whose main business is to sell commercial software that's not necessarily tied to open source So a bit about open source at Dynatrace or some background Dynatrace is an observability and security company so we built security and Observability products we have been doing this for a very long time our software that we sell to customers is SAS based and Most of that software is actually proprietary. So most of the software by itself is not open source And for a number of reasons one of them being that some of those components are only valuable to us inside Inside the company some of it continued technologies that would only be relevant to us or our competitors At the same time we're using a lot of open source and collaborating in the open source space for example around open telemetry and the whole ecosystem on Data ingestion automation integrating into the cloud native ecosystem and so forth So the interesting thing to to understand here really about how we're doing open source and and how I look at all of this we have a think for our company of our size a reasonably large investment in open source and None of these open source components are integrated into any components in Dynatrace that directly generate ever any revenue So it's not that we have this open core model on this software. We kind of try to do it once It's not really what we're necessarily good at but we believe and invest in open source where it makes sense and contribute to the business so Just bringing this up that you have some understanding of how to do this in a company that doesn't even want to make money out of The open source components that you're building at least not directly We have three major open source projects that we contribute to in in total as it's like roughly 200 But we talk about the ones we strategically contributing to two of them We have actually founded or co-founded and one of your contributing to one is the open feature project One is the captain project and the third one is open telemetry all of those projects We joined very early on captain viewer founding member open feature We initiated and founded it and open telemetry. We collaborated on a lot of the work. It was done there also the Related work that's happening within the W3C around trace context, which was also founded by us But it will see about all of these projects that they very much Have a certain standardization touch to them open feature standardizing How to write feature flagging code in your application how to define feature flags how to manage them The captain project how to get the observability and Automation in a standardized way into kubernetes and open telemetry how to capture standardized telemetry data So a lot what we do is create standards across the industry On core areas where we see them fit and honestly where we want to have standardization So it's easier for us to interact in these markets Overall the team at dinatrace on the open source side is roughly 50 people it keeps steadily growing as we grow on on projects and Starting from 0 to 50. I think is a good Trajectory that we have been on we keep Usually growing at a reasonable size every year depending on project contributions and the areas that we contribute to when we talk about Contributions, this is not just about code contributions So we also take care of community management. We take care of documentation for some of those projects Support them also on the governance side and in the technical community side So this is not just code only we help where the project needs help And support those projects there So when we looked into us both and like the whole idea of creating an open source program office We saw some challenges. I think there's goods and bats and this is obviously my very personal view And then why why did you decided to go for for a different approach? So I suppose very often our advisors only and the only here is obviously under exclamation mark It's very important. What else was they're doing and how they help in the company, but they're not actively Contributing and creating the open source components and they're not contributing to Creating artifacts that are directly related to the business in the sense. Yes Drive open source compliance in the administration. That's great. That's important We got a lot of questions about this We have to take care of this one when we started the whole activities and my colleague David here can tell you a lot About how to get a couple of hundred projects compliant to most open source policies We help this help people to do it and support them We review and advise internal projects so not all projects need to come directly from our team There's always people who want to start a project We actually help them to do this and then also act In a way that we can like fit this into a business model help develop them and then either decide whether they want to move forward or not move forward Scouting for interesting projects is what I heard some are supposed to like rather developing something internally looking at other Projects that are out there. Sometimes we also get asked by colleagues like which project We should pick which others we should not invest how to look at a project Whether it tells you or not or where to look for alternatives and how we can ensure the sustainability of a project so if you have a core project that we don't want to like run and Like really be like in the driving seat We still want to ensure its sustainability in case we build it deeper into the product obviously So that was the plus sides the minus sides with this traditional Oscar models You're not really driving the actual open source works You're not doing the coding the community work. All of this is usually left to other teams that are outside of the Oscar You're not directly aligned to business goals and the notice might be better for discussion when I talk about business goals Yes, you aligned maybe to a business vision and maybe to some of your business priorities But do you share goals with the commercial product teams or not in our case? It was very important to share the same goals that we are measuring We can't be measured by the means of the business and can show active business contributions and also agree with the respective business owners on this and Last but not least not really being responsible for business outcomes. I know this might sound a bit scary you in the open source world You have to influence the community work with them on consensus and still you should be responsible for business outcomes for me coming from a From a background where I was leading my own business unit This was like obvious if I take responsibility Some about something I have to be responsible for the outcomes like how can I not be responsible for the outcomes if I'm doing this Like why are you even? I would even go to my boss and I say why even paying me if you don't even care what the outcome of my work is I mean, it's it's a nice idea, but at some point it wouldn't be that obvious So if it's if you're more the consulting side you're missing out on these actual topics and we didn't like this That's why we decided to go for a different structure that I walk you through Just to take it away our core engineering teams are part of our open source business unit open source is a product at dynatris It happens like every other business unit So how do we do this starting very from the top conceptually Obviously every every now and then we want to start a contribute to an open source project actually both are relevant Step one is strategically modeling the project not having developers. Hey, we built this tool It's actually great It helps solve a lot of problems or sometimes we also in the situation where we are acquiring companies like every bigger company does They have some open source projects going on We have to take the strategic decision Do we want to continue those projects? How do they fit into our overall business plan and so forth and also if you say Well, we want to invest more development resources Development talent and support the project also understanding how the project work So for us, it's really key to understand how a project works the same way a business works The way we do it is using the open source canvas. This is more or less a business model canvas Adaptation specifically for open source project. So it's not only focused on business. It's focused on the core project The audience community and also business value. Why did we create this? It just helps us whenever we engage with the project to ensure that all the important questions are answered There's a link down there where you can download is obviously the open source business the open source can versus open source So if we to download and modify it So one of the most important questions, why do you think actually open source? This is something we keep asking people again because we want to have community engagement Now why is it open source? How does it help us to run something open source versus running it proprietary internally at the company because from our experience running Something open source is somewhere in the range of 30 to 50 percent more expensive than building it entirely in-house And you're also significantly slower if you have to develop something in a purely consensus space Instead of one product manager telling a team what to develop Yes, once it gains momentum once you reach your goals You're going to be faster, but especially in the beginning where you're looking for traction where you're looking for fast progress Honestly building a lot internally might be a much quicker way to do it Especially the way we'd like to do it We don't want to where we have been more successful is not creating a project first and open sourcing it and then getting By and our fastest growing projects are actually those where we got Consensus across other parties. We wanted to collaborate with before we wrote the first line of code Part of this was also was the understanding. Okay, why would the community care and What type of interactions are we getting with the community and who is actually our community like who are the people obviously? Who use the project, but who will be future maintainers who do we envision to be a maintainer of this project? And and why would they be maintaining it and why would their companies? Found them to maintain it. I think everybody in here knows like there's this idea that somebody just doing this for Altruistic purposes, that's not really true That's not how open source is built and the really big projects are built by companies who have a commercial interest in these projects being successful So then going all down to the community side. What do we have to do there? On the top left a very important question that as we have recently seen some companies haven't answered properly And change the licensing models How does the success of my open source project and people using my free open source project help my business be successful So how is the success and the wide usage of my open source process? Having a positive effect on my business and not becoming a threat of people rather go for the open source version and not my commercial Commercial offering or the commercial offering of somebody else Which as we all know in some cases then leads to license changes that restrict you from certain usage Making your users and a lot of people unhappy and we answer this question right from the beginning Very often we get the pushback. Yeah, we figured it out once we were successful. Is this kind of like too late? Yeah, it's like getting a pre-nep when you always want to divorce somebody that's way too late to have this discussion Yeah, it's the discussion should be happening much earlier now that giving any like relationship advice here But I think you get the idea like figure it out before you're successful how it's happening there because otherwise You're not going to be happy there and for us. This is a key question and then we also define the investments up front Very often when you have discusses. Yes, I do this on the side You don't do anything on the side that you want to be successful We need to have a dedicated set of people you need to get your resources like simple things And talk to developers. Yes, let's hand swag to all of our maintainers that you have zero marketing budget If you want to have marketing budget, we have to get you this marketing budget So that's how we structure and work with these projects and give it to them also as a checklist What the outcome of this is that sometimes even the developers is no, this is not really want to want to do this sounds to businessy or can't answer all of those questions and Sometimes it then provides also the input that we use them and obviously presenting it to Our CEO CTO to take that investment and to fit it into a broader business context It usually helps us to be way more prepared and it's a fair way of judgment And also for people learning along the way Step two then really is about corporate alignment Okay, now we have we understand we actually have a strategy beyond writing cool code or want to like build something That makes the world a better place Having an idea now we really need to align it and what we do we really drive this alignment sessions top down So very short primer how we do it like most companies do it. We have like very high level goals That directly come like from the CEO top down. Is there a mission critical goals? They're moved into what we call like needle movers The first below I was mission critical goals Long story short. We build nothing open source. That's not aligned to any goal in the company Because we simply can't Sometimes we do it a bit more forward-looking, but that's a different discussion Then we define how towards this mission critical goals. What are the most important activities that we need to take? That's what we call needle movers. I know every company has different words for it And then we will see how open source can help there then we define how but how this Open source initiatives actually have business impact against hard goals. This is not community growth This is not contributions. Nobody actually cares in the in your board How many contributions how many stars you get how many maintainers you have how many conferences you've spoken at? That's the hard tools to care how you contribute to the bottom line of your business and that's fair And then obviously we define the funding and funding obviously goes in line with business impact So we plan the same way we plan everything else on the product side We were actually part of the same planning cycle as every other part of the product We have to provide the same materials We have the same business reviews as everybody else in the company So we tweet open source exactly the same way this for us was quite a journey to get there But when I took it over that was my primary goal to come from okay, we give you some money to do some open source So now I want to be Liable to the business. I want to be aligned to the business. I want to everybody look at what we're doing here Constantly all the way up to our CEO So this is a bit abstract Let's give you two examples how this works in the real world and I'll come into like how do we execute the strategy? And this is actually not great secret This are actually dynamic ways examples that you see in here But if you would spend a little bit of thinking you would come to the same Giving you two examples one is open to let me free What's our business called increase market share and observability da and observability company that wants to get market Share and observability quite obvious. So Now, you know one of the strategic goals of dynamic ways you might have known before So how do we do this? We get more observability data from our customers So we increase our market share by getting more customers and getting more data from our customers right pretty obvious What is hot? What is kind of keeping us back from this the quality of Open to limit free data. So very often a lot of these libraries were written Data was not properly tagged Which means we couldn't use it in our product customers did not see the data the data wasn't the wrong format Some of our Analytics and the i keep capabilities were not working properly on the data. So it had no value for these customers So that's why they weren't sending us more data because why should if it's not working properly, right? One approach would obviously be tell the customer that the data is wrong But that doesn't help you a lot either generally custom. Hey, you sent me something. I don't know what to do with it Even if it's somebody else's fault, it doesn't help you business, right? So how did we resolve this? We decided that one of our strategic needle mover goals was we want to ensure the quality of observability data Across all the major technology stacks. We see out there that what we get has the quality that we want How did we do this we decided while we're getting part of the open telemetry Initiative around semantic conventions actively contributing to semantic conventions taking some work BF internally a dinotrace Contributing it working with the teams there thrown it off. This is aligned And just I was the specifications by themselves do not really help a lot We also support the implementation So we ensure that they make it into the sdk is the libraries can't rip repositories and so forth as quickly as possible Even going further helping for a third party projects that we see widely used by our customers Building additional components. That's for example, how the captain project came along what it basically does It adds on top of kubernetes the ability to do Observability and tracing for your kubernetes deployments across individual deployments for like entire applications And then attach actions to it And it just doesn't matter have a presentation, which is actually right That the switch that you see here the lower part is the business goals the upper part are the open source goals So how do we measure success now? We track our interest volume Do we get more open source data? That was our goal in the beginning Do we get more data that we can work with assuming that we roll it out to a wide Amount of frameworks that are important to our customers Improving those frameworks our interest volume should go up And I will see the percentage of proper open telemetry data Now we will notice now like why is this here on the right and not divided by open source and commercial because it's actually the same goal A goal over here to get more observability data is tracked by the percentage of proper data and the overall interest volume The success of four open initial source initiatives can be measured by the success The amount of proper open telemetry data we get as contributing to those libraries Plus the overall interest volume as customers are sending us more of the data So the goal of open source is exactly the same as of the business And as mentioned before what I can see here. There's no contributions. There is no stars. There is No anything else at that level That we care about But everybody understands why we're doing it and everybody can assign a Number value to those interest values, which we are measuring and we can design the priorities how much we want to invest there giving you another example on open feature except the same modeling framework and Yeah, obviously feel free to copy it for your your own way So what do we what's one of our goals? We want to support more developer use case So we want to use support developers use observability also office for an observability company So we need to best but understand progressive delivery. There's actually a typo in here Which we progressively need to change later on So we want to understand when people roll out new functionalities when they turn on feature flags and so forth That's a key goal. We we no longer have like one single releasing production Those all of us know we have multiple versions in a blue canary deployment We even have like this complexity of different features being turned on by different users And we need to understand this data properly and easily What was holding us back too many implementations? So there's like roughly maybe 40 feature flagging providers out there with libraries across amongst 10 Languages that sums up to like roughly 400 libraries that you need to support that all of kind of do the same thing But slightly different So it's a total mess And then you realize that all of these libraries kind of like do the same thing but not exactly the same way So again, what was the goal on the open source side? Let's try for a common standard of those libraries most of those libraries back then already were open source But were developed by individual companies Not collaborating so That's why we started out and initiated the open feature project The goal of the open feature project was to create a standard for feature flagging across languages with standard SDKs And a provider architecture where you can plug it pretty much any back end that you want Right now we are moving even like having a flag definition and rule evaluations built across vendors So what we then did again, we didn't start the project We didn't even start writing the code we talked to everybody in the industry who built something like this And heard all the hard conversations in the beginning Like imagine going to a market leader like launch dark liens And well, we want people no longer to use your SDKs, but an SDK that's built consensus by 15 or 20 vendors out there So we more or less built a business validation act that we gave to people who we wanted to participate that they could take to their cto So that they could make an argument why to do it that was most of my work in setting up this project It was not cheering up people. It was not about setting up Guitar projects. It was not setting up about calendars. It was not finding an amazing logo It was really about helping those people justified internally When once we got beyond critical miles, we started to actually work on it And ended up in this case with the project was moving really fast So we had our 1.0 release of the SDKs six months after We initially started the project We had alignment that was good enough in the project Also, it was seen submitted to the cncf to be under foundation coverage And for some reason like the cncf processes were a bit slow We were not even under foundation management where the whole team across companies was already writing code And that's how we could keep up with that speed right now We have covered already all major languages And today have also con so end user companies like Spotify in our case an ad user company contributing dedicated SDKs Google contributing all the major vendors starting to contribute and the community like really actively driving this But the main work was really getting the community on board. So this is not a code goal The code goal they go on the very beginning was getting 15 people on board to agree working on a common implementation Yeah, and obviously we actively support the implementation. So some of the SDKs have been written by us Usually where we see where we have to support more I honestly it's much easier to find people contributing code than those running your community than taking all the Job board and carry water work, which we often contribute But supporting this and driving a lot of the implementation work forward And again, how do we measure this same story here? Track usage amongst our customers. So that's what we want on the commercial side Plus what we want on the open source side so the more people we see using open feature and obviously tracking Usage of your open source project in the wide world of all the software companies out there is a very hard problem to solve Tracking it amongst the customers or dictate the people who you care about a or customers and and your prospect is much easier Especially if you know observability company like we know which libraries are loaded and how much of them do we see The second one was obviously track supporting companies. So when it's also obvious when we interact with a customer who is Over the using a feature flagging solution Can they use the SDKs and are they using the SDKs and are they provided by these feature flagging companies? Again, what you see here the goals for the open source side and the goals for the commercial side are exactly the same So we report on the same number that the commercial arm is interested in and we're even aligned and driving them Time origins might be a bit different like when we start working obviously on adoption It takes a couple more quarters or a year or so until we see it in customer Always customers showing up. I think that's quite that's quite natural there, but the overall goals are the same Like using this modeling approach like really helped us justify why we're doing it and I mean to be honest It looks very simple if you put it on the slide and like totally obvious Usually when you start off it takes some time thinking But that's also why I wanted to provide this framework It's like really how you break down goals which barriers to your hit how does open source help you to overcome this and find Like a joint measurement and again what you see here no contributions. No stars nothing These are things we track internally obviously But at the CFO level nobody cares If you still believe that the CFO cares about your Github stars No So how do we run this department? I don't think there's also some are different I mentioned it in the beginning in order to do this We need to drive implementations independent of product. There's a bit of an eye chart, but this is more or less The chart of the department we have as I mentioned, this is an entire business unit We structured it like any other business unit. This is actually important for two reasons Reason number one is you have everything in there that you need to run the business, which is super helpful Reason number two, which I think is even more important Is that other business units understand how to interact with you? They need who to talk to people have the same names We have somebody who is a go-to-market product manager We have somebody who is responsible for growth like all the other solutions So if somebody else needs something from us on a growth perspective, they know who to talk to you So this most likely is not going to be exactly what you would need Depending on how your business work the key takeaway should be model yourself in a way that the rest of the organization understands how to interact with you We do actually the same like we have we're using g-ring only for products We have a structure on how we break down All of our depth work in a variation of Scaled edge how we do the same you might say but open source projects don't work that way. No, they don't But our success is that for them we mimic The behavior of the rest of the product organizations and fit ourselves in there Like we take open source roadmap items we fit them in you would find Things like on the open telemetry roadmap that are actually part of what we call like a value increment In our commercial product roadmap So that people can like work with it and align with it This by the way also like allows us to very directly track the impact on product deliverables So if it's to take a certain feature or we call it like a value pack something we ship to the customer I could directly See how much of this was actually related to open source If your question is now, how do you handle something like contributing to community meetings being on a tc being on a governance board remodel it as maintenance Just as you would do with software for software you have new for product development You have maintaining what you have out there and keeping the project running. That's where we would put it in there Yes, we have the highest maintenance rates compared to other product units, but that's just realistically how it works And it's obviously well, if we don't do this we kind of lose that this will use the influence and like these Part of the product will be impacted So obviously there is like open source as a department with the department head And then we have open source product managers. Yes, we have for all of those products Independent product managers on our side There is a counterpart also on the product side. They have a slightly different scope So there won't be an open telemetry product manager on the product side There will be one for as we call the application observability that we interact with but they are more interacting with each other And we do this for every project the difference between the two one is fully focused on product delivery One is focused on upstream and upstream integrations I'm a big fan of having people when they wake up in the morning think of one thing they need to care about today Single threaded leadership You will never get this if you do product and open source at the same time Your planning horizons will also be different. We do the same for engineering. Yes, the engineering teams as for every business You need to report directly to open source All upstream contributions and upstream integrations are built by the dedicated engineering teams That are part of open source, so they're not part of product And I will come to why we do this. This is usually a reason for discussion why and they're part of the product teams It's an anecdote to share We still have open source enablement that's helping other people to start open source project Actually, that has become less and less of where we put the effort some of the work integrated into overall processes at Dynatrace and other departments and As we have set up the basics that is working better And then we have a go-to-market organization that consists of community growth architecture and development So architecture development actually does two things it helps us to integrate with other open source projects So we have people take care like how do we integrate Our open source projects with our open source project in the community at an architecture level How do we integrate it with the entire product stack? How do we integrate them into like an overall customer solution? How can we help like our internal support systems work with this? So we not just do the upstream contributions, but we also help the organizations to actually consume and work with those projects And obviously then we have the death rel team in our case death rel People are not called death rels well They are called to the outside world But internally they act as go-to-market Product managers and they also follow the guidance of go-to-market product managers because that's kind of technically what they do You could argue they do more than this and it would differently Yes, but again the rest of the organization needs to understand how you work And if somebody says hey, how can we talk about this open telemetry feature or how about this open feature thing? That we want to talk to you know exactly who to go to Again, this is how we do it You might might look different for your organization But the the key message should be engineering is a core part of it You have dedicated product management and you may make the structure of the rest of the organization So nobody has to learn how to interact with you That's the question we often get Like why is it not part of the product teams? Like why is open telemetry not part of your open of your observability product team? Why is open vision not part of like some of our automation capabilities? Why isn't this part of like the regular product teams? And there's actually a number of good reasons why this isn't the case First of all this focus Again, single-threaded leadership The first thing that happens if you take engineers that work on open source and product Put them under the same product management that the open source engineers Will stop working on open source and help out on the product very super critical That that that's like clockwork that's going to happen What we actually had we actually had this like very very in the beginning And it's actually a really interesting story We had we had took some of the people working on open source back to the core product teams And the other thing happened they started to work on core product more than an open source Then those people wanted to work on open source again So what did they do they then applied for role again in the open source business You need to work on open source So the key learning there was if you want to like twisted that way The system self reorganizes in a way it actually works Better why did they want to do it because also they're like daily routines were on this Different the way they're interacting with others and even more A lot of the commercial people who then had to do something on the open source that they didn't want to do this Like why do I have to argue with somebody I'd rather take a ticket from my backlog work on it Rather than arguing with 15 people on the internet about this and know what I'm doing I can do it and I don't care about the opinion of 15 other people Which is totally fair Which leads like to different skills working in open source and working in a commercial one is totally different The processes are totally different actually as a developer in open source That's also why we brought in the pms If you work with enhancement proposals if you work with interactions If you have to take a lot of calls to convince people you might argue that also happens on the product side But at some point you realize as a product manager Your power to influence the product depends a lot on your contributions And a lot on like how you can get other people on board and convince them Not when it's easy not when you're just adding something but when people have different opinions You need different problem resolution skills in an organization Like what do you do worst case if we two are at the same level and we totally disagree We go to our manager and let them resolve the issue If we were to work for different companies Totally different situation so the skills it is different the people who want to do it is different And also for us as we run most of our engineering out of Europe So we make a mix of like Europe and then East Coast US because we can cover both Work with European colleagues and West Coast US easily You have to convince them to stay later You have to have people who want to come to work later but then stay later Because unfortunately people on the West Coast get up much later than they do in Central Europe Believe it or not Different horizons so what we also do like sometimes we have to invest in something That might not get relevant for the problem in the current fiscal year Or that's not part of the current business results We still have to do it because of strategic importance A product manager on the product side would never prioritize this Because it's not his job and it's not what he should do A product manager in the open source leadership we need to take bets into the future And we have the freedom to do so So right now it's almost like a mix of something 50% direct product contributions That help immediately and 50% strategic bets that we're taking Because we think that's where we're moving That's also why 50% of the work is actually funded by the product teams directly And the rest comes from open source where we have this freedom And obviously this varies over time Like if there's a big new development in one of the open source projects And we have to work way more upstream to get this table There's less of the big bets that you're working on There's always worries, but usually the horizon is different As a product manager you have to deliver always with the next release On the open source side you might in many cases get something ready for the next fiscal year To then be part of your product portfolio And that's your only horizon you're focusing on And again, think let's write a leadership what you think about in the morning You can't think about two things at the same time Yeah, and I mentioned like the mindset on how you do, how do you want to work Get a task to the best way possible being done Or discussing with other people, not doing it the best way But the way everybody agrees on, deferring something you consider important Doing it six months later when people also understand why you wanted to go there Maybe bringing somebody else on board, having the tough discussions Like rather getting it done, that's what we saw Can you get us this into open source, please? I proposed it to like 15 people shouting at me right now And like this red is so long, I don't want to do it I'm happy to implement it like once everything moves forward Even this is sometimes what the open source team does We have experts from the product coming helping with the implementation But we help them to get this into the whole open source flow To wrapping up here, adjustment that we needed to make along the way Actually we renamed the team in the beginning it was called open source What led to that everything that's on GitHub was suddenly our responsibility Even if we never created it and were never responsible for it Because we're the open source team, hey it's a GitHub, it's our job It's actually not That's why we renamed it to upstream contributions and integrations We're responsible for upstream work and integrating it into the product That's also how we relate to the product For example, if there's new capabilities in open telemetry That need product integration we'll support this part It's not that everything we do is open source, but it's always open source related In this case, sometimes the skill set in the open source team is higher To build some of those integrations that stand from the core product teams Or as I mentioned, follow your standard product development process Don't try to be the unicorn in development that never works for big organizations If you have, I think more than 500 and as many organizations here A couple of thousand of developers, don't try to be special That's not helping you here The more you can align with what works in the organization the better it does For us it did like really mimicking the behavior People know how to work with you, processes flow smoothly And you know how to integrate Drive towards full business accountability Try to be responsible I know it sounds scary, like not everything is under your control Sometimes things are late, sometimes things do not get built Yes, that's how business happens anyways You never know exactly what's happening in the market But at least have an opinion on how you want to contribute to the business And communicate it openly And have an agreement that what you're doing is important to the right people Yes, it might be scary Going that far, but I think it's really what's changing a lot of things Last thing, independence versus product-driven Briefly mentioned this as well, we try to do some things independently From product schedules because we consider them important We think these are key new initiatives And at the same time have to do something that the core product teams Need to do on the open source and we kind of need to balance in between And that's actually the management responsibility here Like they have this constant balancing act Like how far do you lean, where do you help, where is it priorities When do you actually say no to product because you think there's something On the horizon that the team is working on It's going to be so important in six months from now That it has bigger impact on what the product team might need from you right now Again, a lot of conversations and that's also what you're doing So that's basically it That's just giving you an idea of how we do open source A slightly different from traditional osprey approaches Sharing some examples of how we do it Obviously open for questions, discussions Disagreements, disagreements, disagreements are sometimes interesting Opening up the stage to you Of course it's faster than open source That left me thinking And I was like, well, if you don't document your code If you take shortcuts, it's just easier to do it We hang closed doors than they open Are you thinking of some other examples? It is faster in the beginning But actually if you're building the same thing And it's very important if you build the same thing And you build it in consensus with ten other companies You are significantly slower getting consensus, agreement And everything done on this piece of code Than doing it first, it's not just about shortcuts and not documenting But if you have one product in your manager And one architect deciding what to do You're faster than doing it with a lot of others That's my point, consensus takes longer In the long run if this is your goal it's totally fine But sometimes we, and I can give you an example Sometimes we prototype things internally Which we later on use in the open source project And get it to production quality It is significantly faster Because we're not asking other people for opinions We don't go for agreements We do not have to take considerations What it means for other people's product integrations We built what's best for us And not what's best for ten people And sometimes people have interested their companies And have to cater to That you wouldn't even be concerned But if it was just an implementation for you To give very one concrete example We worked with one big cloud providers And we wanted to change one character In a specification for a trace context Like why are we discussing about one character For five hours now It was a long day in Seattle We were discussing it for five hours Said yes because we have implemented this Across all of our cloud service And changing this one character For a high two digit million dollar in R&D cost So this is one example of other product integration Which has different opinions on topics At some point you don't need to care Like if you want to be really fast and graph the result Yes, long term sustainability And industry adoption is a different one And certain things you don't need to do Like managing community meetings Getting everything on board Seeing that everybody has time Maybe running a second meeting Because somebody couldn't join You have to do another one Then running it with one internal development team Code reviews You want at least three organizations To approve your PR Versus just two of your colleagues To approve the PR What's faster? And I'm not saying that open source is a bad idea You just need to know what you're getting yourself into Because I've seen people being frustrated Building by consensus takes time and effort It is important for sustainability But to your point Yes, that's how we came there Open source projects And they do so many beautiful things And their business model is supposed to be based on that And you seem to have answered this question You seem to be saying that's not necessarily a good idea To base your business model on an open source project Excuse me, I'd like to add that It seems based on what you were saying You guys tried that but it didn't work It didn't work for us in that specific way And we also are a type of company What I believe in, you can't build a business model Based on some open source work That is a component of it But what you shouldn't do You just shouldn't provide a SaaS service Because every cloud provider Eventually can do it better than you And you just shouldn't do it By providing some support capabilities Or some enterprise capabilities Because others will enter your market What I think does work You build your open source project To solve one problem That gets your end users into a situation Where they then need your commercial product Which always should have at least a different use case And ideally also a different target audience Looking at open feature What open feature actually solves Is defining and evaluating feature flags Building an open feature cloud service Would be for anybody who would like to be In that every ridiculous effort Because you're never going to make money out of it Red Hat's going to do it AWS is going to do it Google is going to do it Pick and choose whoever you want GitLab, pick whoever you want to do that there But if your goal is you want the standardization Of feature flagging Because you wanted to build the best Maybe AI based as we build everything AI based right now Progressive delivery solution Then you have a different business model You have a different use case And your differentiation is not The one that you are part of The open source projects So that way you can build something On top of it But assuming that everybody is using Your open source project Which situation are there in Where your commercial product Is adding additional value to it Complementary Kind of complimentary like extending Beyond that initial use case Or it's different I mean it's radically different You could say or not It's just the next step It's just the next step that users Might run into Or you might Then for example this allocated feature flag Is available but you have the best analytics Like a lot of problems in feature flagging Are fine stale flags Fine flags that are properly used Which ones and which combinations Relate to certain problems Doing things like this But it's not the exact use case It's usually an on top use case That you need to build on I think that's a much better idea Than just being there because I mean we've seen it with companies Who try to just provide the service On top of how well this actually goes And what happens when you Change your business model How well does this go Not really but if a use case Is different that's why We have this question Everybody is using So as a project for free For this project They don't want to buy anything commercial How is this helping your business And that's the question If I was a VC I would ask somebody Getting funding And if they can't answer it I would send them back to do their homework Because there is always a business case Examples Examples as I mentioned Like the open feature one Obviously people like Building the progressive delivery For open telemetry It's more the analytics capabilities on top Like storing the massive amounts of data Doing the analytics So you always have to think it through For the individual project Just stay away from making it Just enterprise features as well Like as part of the CNCF tech Remember one project coming to us They built the open source solution Where it can cross cloud provision Your infrastructure You use a template You can start like a whole AWS environment A bit of a matter of what size But how do you do a different open source And commercial Authentication is actually part of the commercial offering Because we know that people will use it And they ask them Do you think anybody in the market will use An automation solution That could in one minute Spend one million dollars without authentication But cost optimization in this use case Like which resources you should switch to Understanding patterns When things are working not working Building like schedule deployments Like taking things offline Online depending on workloads Would offer an entirely different approach On how to work with these environments Just to take one I think it's always a very use case specific But it's an important question to ask And have an answer for Thanks, thank you Yeah, so if you don't want to ask questions In the background Feel free to also come over here Or find me through the conference Or otherwise it would also be easy to find Thank you


A judge in Spain has ruled that pop singer Shakira must face trial for dodging 14.5 million pounds in tax. The Waka Waka singer will be docked for tax fraud unless she brokers a last-minute agreement with the prosecution. After three years of investigations, the judge has concluded that there are sufficient indications for the Colombian artist to go to trial. It said the prosecution has charged Shakira with a total of six tax crimes which, if convicted, could land her with a jail sentence. According to the judge, Shakira should have paid 14.5 million pounds in personal income tax and corporation tax. The singer and other defendants used a series of mechantiled companies to appear as owners of Shakira's assets. The singer only appeared as the real headline ultimately and in companies based in territories considered rather as tax havens, the court ruling revealed.


Hi everybody. Thank you for joining us today. My name is Andy McAfee. I'm a scientist at MIT, and I have the great pleasure to moderate this session on delivering the reskilling revolution. The Davos agenda of 2021 is in its first day, and what we've already learned is that the single most important topic, the topic that does on top of everyone's minds, and that is the most frequent subject of discussion so far in the Davos agenda, is exactly the importance, the urgency of reskilling. So we are exactly in the right place at the right time to talk about this. For the first half hour of this hour long session, we will livestream this conversation out across the world via all of our channels. And then for the second half hour, we will move into a smaller scale session involving forum members and partners. So if you are one of those members or partners, please stick around for the second half as well. The very first person to win the Nobel Prize in Economics was a Dutch economist named Jan Tinbergen, and I think he got the situation exactly right. He said inequality is a race between technology and education. Technology can tend to increase inequality. It leads to more winner-take-all dynamics. It shuffles the required skills around. There are some challenges associated with greater inequality. The best way to deal with those challenges and to bring us back together and have a more equal society is by providing those skills, by lifting people up and providing education. The opportunity here is to rethink the way we're providing those skills, and in particular in a lot of cases, to use the technology itself to be part of the reskilling revolution. Those are some of the topics that we're going to cover today. As always with the forum, we have an all-star group of people to help us with this. I'd like to introduce our fourth panelist for the first half hour in alphabetical order. They are Majid Jafar, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Crescent Petroleum, Lady Mahian Jam, who is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of I Am the Code, Ashish Advani, who is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Junior Achievement Worldwide, and Ryan Roslansky, who was the Chief Executive Officer of LinkedIn. Before I turn it over to the panel, I'd like to invite my forum colleague, Sadia Zahidi, to give us an update on the reskilling revolution platform, which is one of the signature forum initiatives and is one-year-old as of right about now. Sadia? Great. Thank you very much, Andy. One year ago at the annual meeting in Davos when we were physically gathered, we launched the reskilling revolution initiative, and the aim was to reach one billion people with better education, better skills, and better jobs by 2030. Now, over this last year, we could not have seen this pandemic coming, and yet as we look out into 2021, this agenda is more urgent than ever before, and the platform can support a lot of the work towards it. So one big announcement of today is in collaboration with PWC, we did some research to understand what upskilling could lead to in terms of returns, and upskilling investments could lead to more than six trillion dollars being added to the global economy by 2030. So the dollar value number there is incredibly important, but of course the social repercussions are even more so. The second major update is that over this last year, despite the pandemic, the initiatives on the reskilling revolution platform have been able to reach 50 million people with better skills, particularly focused on those that are at-risk workers or displaced workers, and helping redeploy them into new jobs and new roles. That's work in 10 economies and 10 industries, and we're expecting six new countries to join the initiative this year. The third aspect is we all know that the language or the taxonomy around skills is somewhat dispersed. There's different language being used by employers, different language being used by educational institutions, different language being used by individuals when they describe their skills, and so what we've tried to do is with a number of the online learning platforms, with a community of chief learning officers, and with a community of chief HR officers, we've created a new taxonomy that is also being released today, and that can be used by everybody so that we all start speaking the same language, and finally there are a number of coalitions that are part of this initiative, and you'll hear more from LinkedIn, from I am the Code, from JA Worldwide, from UNICEF, from ILO across the course of the Davos agenda week on all of the fantastic work that is being done, but there's much more to still be solved, and I hope we'll hear more about that today. Thank you, Andy, back to you. We absolutely will hear more about that today. I'm going to turn it over to our panelists now. I have some questions for each of them, and I need to ask forgiveness in advance. We have a very tight agenda. We're short on time, so if I have to intervene and ask people to summarize and wrap up, please forgive me in advance. Ryan, we'd like to start with you. LinkedIn has this amazing, I think of it as kind of a cockpit or a dashboard for how jobs are changing around the world, what's in demand, what skills in particular are employers looking for? Can you start off by giving us a look at that cockpit and telling us what are some of the most important trends that you and LinkedIn are seeing in the world of skills and jobs? Yeah, absolutely. Well, thanks again for having me. I think this is such an important initiative, and like you said, we see in the LinkedIn data, we call it the economic graph. On LinkedIn, maybe you have a LinkedIn profile, there's about 700 million people in the world that have a LinkedIn profile, 55 million companies that have a LinkedIn profile that are at any given time posting up to 14 million jobs, and the connection of all those assets create what we call the economic graph, which gives us, to your point, a real-time dashboard into some of the things that are happening across the global economy. To your point, two trends that are worth calling out that we're seeing right now in the data. First and foremost, COVID has compressed years of digital transformation in the last couple of months, so it's no surprise that we're seeing a huge move into digitization. We project that nearly 150 million new tech jobs will be created over the next five years across software development, IT, product management, AI, et cetera, and many other jobs are just going to quite simply become more tech-enabled. They're going to require digital skills to do the work that you would have done, maybe offline in the past. Secondly, we're actually seeing a good increase demand for pandemic-driven roles, as you'd expect as well, especially around healthcare and education. The good news that we're seeing across all this is just the idea that transitioning into new roles is possible because skills are the currency. Over 75% of people, for example, who are moving into these data and AI and product management roles right now are coming from different job functions to begin with. Jobs are just a combination of skills at the end of the day, skills of the currency. For example, a food server has 71% of the skills that you would need to transition into something like a customer service role, but right now customer service roles are so in high demand on LinkedIn, but that need and ability for someone to move from food service is pretty simple to move into customer service. Similarly, someone like a bartender has about 47% of the skills you need to move into a sales role. It's really important to understand this transition of it's not just about the jobs, it's about the skills required for the jobs, skills of the currency. Now it's easier than ever to acquire those skills to demonstrate the proficiency, where in the past a lot of emphasis was really driven by education or pedigree alone. I think that's really good right now because we need to ensure they're creating economic opportunity for everyone and that ability to acquire skills, I think it's easier now more than ever. As long as to say this point, we have a good taxonomy and we're all talking about the same skills and we make that access equitable for everyone across the globe. Brian, let me ask you a quick follow-up. I find it fascinating like you say that the skills overlap between apparently distant jobs can actually be quite large. Do you have any insight yet in how you go about telling that bartender, for example, that they have 75% of what they need to transition into a sales job? Can you communicate to people what their skills actually are and what the easy transitions are? Absolutely, and I think that's the key to a lot of what's going to happen, make this happen, moving forward. Again, it starts with a status point. We need to make sure that we're all talking about skills in the same way. I think that's a critical foundation for all this because once we do that, we can be connecting education and employers and employees together. From that point, anytime someone is looking for a new job, we do it on LinkedIn platform. You have your LinkedIn profile. Your LinkedIn profile shows the skills that you have. We have all the jobs that are available in the world as well and the skills that those require. Our ability to go into a world where we're using those skills as the asset, the skills of the currency, to easily tell you that, hey, by acquiring these three skills, you have access to opportunity of these five jobs. You can make more money in these certain ways or it's moving this way. That's a lot of what we're doing. We recently launched a tool on LinkedIn, which is called the Career Network Explorer. You can find it at opportunity.linkedin.com, but it's really setting the stage to do exactly what you just said. Time for one more quick follow-up with you. You mentioned that there are, I'm sorry, 700 million people that have a LinkedIn profile right now. That's correct. 722 million, actually. Great. You would like to get that to a billion. We on this session would all like to get that to a billion or even higher. What's it going to take to get many more people onto these job and skill platforms? I think that the more people get access to technology in general is very helpful. A lot of the growth right now that we're seeing across LinkedIn is happening outside the United States. We're seeing strong growth across Asia. We're starting to see growth across Africa. These network-based products grow based on network effects, so the larger the network gets, the more people invite other people to join it. I think it's just a matter of time before we see that billion number across LinkedIn. Again, the most important part of this is that it's not about the number. It's about once you get people on these platforms, once you get people to demonstrate the skills that they have to connect them to opportunity, there's so much good and value that comes out of this data and this graph that we can do to connect talent opportunity to get the skills that they need moving forward in the world. I'm sorry, I just made the classic Zoom error of trying to talk while I was on mute. Ryan, thank you very much. Lady Maryam, let me turn to you. I am the code is such a fascinating organization because you're trying to deliver, you don't call it STEM skills anymore. I just saw you call it steamed skills. We want to understand what those are, but we want to understand most fundamentally how you have found success in giving those skills to more marginalized, more underrepresented communities around the world. Well, thank you, Andrew. I'm so excited to be here. I remember last year at the same time we were at, you know, when Sadia kindly invited us to join the risk killing platform. I was in a Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya with over 3,000 girls launching the risk killing platform. So today I can report that, you know, all of our girls are part of the platform, but at the same time they are learning how to code. And what the reason why we chose the, you know, steamed as a, you know, as a topic, it's science, technology, engineering, art, mathematics and design. We cannot design platform like the risk killing platform without including marginalized girls. When I say marginalized girls, I'm talking about young girls that the world has forgotten like myself when I was growing up as a child. I didn't have any education today. I'm sitting here talking to you because somebody have given me the skills I needed as a young woman. And that's why it's very important platform like the risk killing platform. As Sadia said, it's not just a language, but we make sure that we include people. And I think for me what is really exciting today and at Davos is that we are including people and this platform is all about that. And for us at IMDocode, we are the first ever African organization to mobilize government, private sector, and businesses to advance them education. But we need, we must not forget the young girls and the boys growing up across the world. Throughout the COVID-19, we have seen that girls don't have infrastructure, they don't have connectivity, they don't have devices.  You know, LinkedIn platform, they're very good platforms, all of that. But there are some young girls right now sitting down as you and I are speaking that don't have access to any skills. And for me, you know, we've been talking about skills, data as the new oil, I think skills are the new oil. If you don't have skills, you can't have job. If you don't have job, you don't have dignity. If you don't have dignity, you know, you have mental health issues and so many things happening across the world because people just don't have the skills they need. So risk killing them, giving them different opportunities is absolutely. What are the main things that you've learned in your organization's history about how to take those young people who are your targets, make them aware of this opportunity, and then keep them interested throughout a curriculum. Steam skills are critically important. They're not trivially easy to acquire. Learning to code takes a lot of effort and diligence. What have you learned about how you keep these people engaged, how you keep them on track? That's a very good question. I think, first of all, organization like us, we never had a seat at the table. You know, we've been, there's so many organizations across the world who are doing amazing job. If you want to reach the one billion people, we need to include people. And I think the reason why I'm so excited and so honored to be part of this platform, and because my voice is being heard, and when my voice is being heard, the voice of young marginalized girls will be heard. That's number one. And number two, we all of us have skills across the world. We know what to do. We know what works and what doesn't work. I think what we don't do sometime, we don't include people into the conversation. We don't include experts. And when we look into science, technology, engineering, mathematics, art, and design, many people we're talking about, well, poor people can't learn about coding. Poor people can't do this. Why, let's feed them first before you talk about coding. And then I demonstrated within a year that I can teach young girls from Uganda sitting down in Kampala or sitting down in Afghanistan who can actually do data entry in a very simple way, or young girls sitting in Kakuma refugee camp as a refugee where she comes from a fractured society. Not only she's deprived from her human right, but also she's sitting in a way that she has no dreams. Within one year, I teach one girls how to do Java, Python, and Ruby. I didn't go to school. I'm the typical example of a young girl who didn't have any education. And today I've learned seven coding languages in my local library in Guildford. So the model works. We know what works. But what we need to do, I think, and I think that's why I'm urging every single person to buy this platform. Because in 2030, my young girls who are now 11 years old, they'll be 21 years old. Those are the girls who will be going on LinkedIn to try to find jobs. But if we don't invest right now, it's not going to work. I think we need to start investing in young girls and boys today. And then we will see the result in 2030. We're all going to celebrate, because it's so important right now. If I'm here today, it's because someone gave me an opportunity. And then I'm going to use all my power and all my influence, all the opportunity I have working with the risk killing platform and being a young global leader at the World Economic Forum to make sure everyone knows about this platform so we can risk kill boys and girls so they can get a job in 2030. What's the minimum technology set that your target population needs? Is it just a smartphone and some internet connectivity? Literacy, numeracy. So we just launched a campaign called Read, Write and Code. When you know how to read, how to write, I learned my alphabet when I was 16 years old. By the time I was 20 years old, I was already learning four coding languages in my local library. Safety is also important. Cybersecurity right now is very key for these young girls who are being abused online. That's also important, but it's very basic. Just know how to read, how to write, and once you know how to read, how to write, it's easy for you to know how to code. That's why we launched this campaign for everyone to know how to read, how to write, how to code, literacy, numeracy, and then you start learning how to code. And like I said, I really want people to know that skills are the new oil. If you don't have skills, no matter who you are in this world, you will never have a job and then it's going to be difficult for you to be part of the market, the global workforce. And that's why we need to back the risk-killing platform because it's an important initiative at the World Economic Forum. Fantastic. Thank you so much. Ashish, let's turn to you. We actually haven't talked very much yet about the pandemic, which is kind of an important phenomenon for all kinds of reasons around the world. One of them is that it has increased the urgency of this reskilling task that we're talking about.  Can you characterize the changes that the pandemic has brought and how you're responding to them? Sure. And I want to just start by saying, wouldn't it be wonderful to have more people like Miriam in the world? And if we just thought of this reskilling initiative as a way to give more young girls, young women, and young boys the chance to have the mindset that Miriam has to actually acquire these skills, the challenge is how do you do this in a pandemic? How do you do this when over one billion young people are out of school? And I think what I've observed the JA network doing is just remarkable because I think that the need to pivot and be able to deliver content and programs in a digital way through remote learning has really forced creativity and innovation in our global network. For example, we launched a partnership, frankly, thanks to this reskilling platform with Microsoft to take their digital skills platform, Microsoft Learn, which I understand Ryan was built with the LinkedIn economic graph to actually identify what the skills are that young people do need. We took that platform and we're distributing it now during the pandemic in four different continents, integrating it into JA programs. That's an example of something that probably would have been harder to do outside of a pandemic-like environment because a Microsoft Learn platform is done through remote learning. And I think one of the important benefits of what WEF has done is by bringing stakeholders together rather than have everyone build something new from scratch, what this platform does is it allows people to identify what their assets are, in our case distribution to young people and partner with people who've got great technology or great learning tools and really find a way to help reach this very ambitious goal of one billion young people by 2030. It's going to take two collaboration and cooperation to make that happen. I'll give you two more examples really briefly in my time. One is the importance of mindset shift. So it's not just about skills. It's also about role models. So to have a young person like Miriam be able to have that confidence to say, yes, I want to learn these skills, requires some connectivity to a role model who's done it before. Those role models can't be people who are say like Jeff Bezos, who, you know, if you're a young girl in Africa, you don't necessarily, in fact, seeing Jeff Bezos might discourage you from actually, you know, going through entrepreneurship program or building these skills. So we have a program in the MENA region, Middle East, North Africa called 100 Future Jobs, which connects young people in the Middle East to role models who are just like them so they can see why they would want to acquire these skills. And the third initiative I want to tell you about is entrepreneurial skills pass, which is a way for young people who've gone through a program in entrepreneurship to actually have a credential to show to employers that they've developed these soft skills that employers so value. So I want to highlight these three because I think skills and mindset and micro credentials all have to come together to be able to deliver these very ambitious goals that Wef has set. Ashish, I love that phrase that you use, you are a distribution channel to young people around the world. Operate that channel in reverse for us just a little bit. And can you channel and summarize what the young people of the world want to say to kind of, you know, the older generation, the incumbents of the world? What messages do you want to deliver to us? Well, I will start by saying that young people are not a monolithic group. So there are so many subgroups even within what we call young people. We have done a survey though. We did in partnership with EY, which reached over 6,000 young people in over 50 countries around the world. And there are very common trends in what we're learning. One is a sense of optimism for a 10 year horizon, but less optimism over the next few years, next say three to five years is less optimism. So I would say one important sort of characteristic of this optimism is if you look at it within the lens of youth disillusionment, being one of the top 10 global risks that Wef has identified in the global risk report, which I think just came out this week, you see that young people who've gone through a program that impacts their mindset look positively on the world. But one of the more real risks we have today is that young people who haven't had these experiences, who don't have that sense of possibility actually can get very disillusioned. And it's now one of the top 10 global risks. So I think it's quite material. Fantastic. Let me turn to Majid. Majid, you are large employer on the panel. You are eager to find people with the skills that you need. And you operate, I think, in parts of the world that are far from the epicenter of the technology revolution. Can you start by giving us an overview of the skills that you're looking for, how they've shifted, especially in light of this technology revolution and because of the pandemic and whether or not you're finding the skills that you need in the markets where you do business? Thanks. So it's great to be here and congratulations to the forum on the reskilling revolution initiative, which is critical and I hope we all can get behind it. So where we're headquartered in the Middle East and North Africa, the youth unemployment challenge or rate is double the global average. So the global average is about 14%, which is three times the rate for adults in general. But in our region, unfortunately, it's about 30% and getting worse. So we've had revolutions, wars, refugee crises, and then on top of that, of course, the COVID pandemic. So it's really quite a big challenge. And unlike Western countries or developed countries, we don't have the social safety net. So there isn't the support. We also have an education system that's failing to prepare young people for the new world of work. Now that reform takes a lot of time. And of course, we have the basic demand challenge of insufficient investment and growth and we can't look beyond that. And we've heard that in earlier sessions today. Let's not lose sight of growth. But in terms of skilling, we have a strange situation in our region where the more qualified you are, the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be unemployed, which is hard to understand, except that the education system is not meeting the requirements of the job market. And at the same time, graduates have an expectation of what their first job is going to be. And the labor market may not be able to support that. So when it comes to technology, we have the threat. I mean, obviously, we're all meeting on Zoom. And if we continue meeting like this, then we don't need to travel. And a lot of young people are involved in the service sector that support travel as one example. But turning to the opportunities of the fourth industrial revolution, I just wanted to refer to two examples where we've been involved. One is a partnership that we've done with Idraq, which is the massive online open courses platform of the Queen Rania Foundation with the British Council to upscale half a million people across the Middle East, North Africa, in three core workplace readiness skills, which is English language skills, IT skills, basic IT skills for the workplace, and workplace skills of the more social type. So we launched it a few months ago, just when the pandemic got going and we were in lockdown. We've already passed 270,000, I'm pleased to say. So I think the countries all across our region. So I think the potential of that is far more. And then a second one is an investment that we've made through our corporate VC arm, CE Ventures. We've invested in Edcast, which is a Silicon Valley-based company that's leading the way in upskilling using AI. And the forum is actually recognized as a tech pioneer. So in India, they've already rolled out nationwide re-skilling and partnership with the IT ministry, which is a great model. And we're now committed to supporting their expansion across the MENA region as well. I want to go back to that truly striking thing that you said, that in the MENA region, in general, the more educated a young person is, the less likely they are to be employed. That is not what we want to see happening. We spent a great deal of time at the forum discussing productive public-private partnerships. You just described a very important partnership between the formal educational system in the region and the employers in the system in that region. That doesn't appear to be working that well. What can we do to make that incredibly important partnership work better? So clearly education reform is needed because our education system, by and large, is set up to train young people to join the public sector. And those public sector jobs aren't available anymore. And even the ones that are require new skills that the basic education system isn't providing. Now, that reform is, of course, a generational challenge. It'll take a long time. I think we need to focus how can we bridge the gap because we can't just give up on the current generation that we have across our region. And one thing is using technology platforms like some of the examples we've talked about in this session. And another is, can we look at more of the apprenticeship-type programs that you have in successful countries like Germany and Switzerland? And now starting in more places like the UK as well, where they also realize they've gone too far in the university-only direction to actually try and meet the needs of the current job market. So it's not easy, but I think using technology and with more participation of the private sector, we can make a real impact. Masjid, thanks. That's extremely helpful. And I would like to thank all of our panelists for their remarks. I learned a lot from them. I'm sure our global audience did as well.


Hi, well, I'm Steven Eschiaveni, and I'm here to tell you a little bit about how wave-like properties of electrons are connected to and lead to covalent bonds. So the first idea that is here is that electrons have wave-like properties. And like any waves, like if you want to think of a water wave, water waves over time, there's a high part of the water wave and a low part and so on, the term that we're going to use for this part of the wave that's above normal, we're going to say that that's a positive phase, if you like. And then there's a negative phase of the wave and a positive phase of the wave. Let's just refer into the amplitude of the wave. And I'm using this symbol psi to indicate the amplitude of that water wave, but it can also be used to indicate the amplitude of the electron wave. And we're accustomed to thinking about these wave-like depictions of electrons as orbitals. That is to say, here's a 1s orbital, and it has this spherical shape. So how do waves manifest themselves in this picture? Well, what happens, what a way to think about it, is that at this point in time, the phase of that orbital is positive, kind of like that. And then later on, the phase of that orbital is negative, and then the phase of the orbital is positive again. And so on. And so we just imagine the phase of all orbitals oscillating from positive, negative, positive. And I've just kind of indicated that here. Same thing happens with a p orbital. In a p orbital, we have two lobes. And what happens is that when one side of the p orbital, one lobe of the p orbital, is in a positive phase like that, then the other one is in a negative phase. So p orbitals, you can kind of think as doing this kind of thing. But just like with any other wave, those phases change over time. So given all that, the question then arises, is what happens when an s orbital from one hydrogen atom, let's say, interferes with the s orbital from another hydrogen atom? And that's what I've kind of drawn here. There's the nucleus of the hydrogen atom right in the center there, and there's another one there. And I've drawn these in a way that they both have positive phase at this particular instant in time. But of course, if they're locked in phase at the same kind of orbital, then what will happen is that when these both go negative, then they will still be in phase. So the overlap of waves when they are in phase kind of has a generic term, and that's called constructive interference. And the same way that you can imagine waves of water which are coincident with each other and in phase, they tend to produce an even bigger wave. That's what's happening right here, especially in the overlap region. So what I've indicated here is that when there's constructive interference between the orbitals of two different atoms, we have a bigger wave amplitude, and that ultimately translates into a higher electron density in between the nuclei. That higher electron density corresponds to electrons having simultaneous attractions to both positive nuclei through Coulomb's law, which in the end is what we understand to be a covalent bond.  You can imagine that there could be constructive interference when the orbitals are in phase with each other, the orbitals from the two different atoms. What happens when those orbitals are out of phase? Well, what happens is that they tend to interfere with each other and they produce a, they erode the amplitude of the wave right at the point where they intersect because one wave is high and the other one is low at the same time. And I've kind of drawn that here as a positive phase, negative phase here. That erosion is called destructive interference and it leads to what we call a node between those two orbitals. And these don't lead to bonding because there's not a buildup of electron density in between them. These orbitals end up getting called anti-bonding orbitals, whereas these end up getting called bonding orbitals. Okay.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session we discussed the following question that says an aeroplane of an airline can carry a maximum of 200 passengers, a profit of $400 is made on each first class ticket and a profit of $300 is made on each economy class ticket. The airline reserves at least 20 seats for first class, however at least four times as many passengers prefer to travel by economy class than by first class determine how many of each type of tickets must be sold in order to maximize the profit for the airline. What is the maximum profit? Let's start with the solution now. Now we have to find out the number of tickets of each type that must be sold in order to maximize the profit. So for this first we assume let X tickets of first class and Y tickets of economy class be sold to maximize the profit. As in the question we have that the airline reserves at least 20 seats for the first class. So means that X would be greater than equal to 20 as X is the number of tickets sold for the first class and the next condition given to us is that at least four times as many passengers prefer to travel by economy class than by the first class. So this means Y would be greater than equal to 4X and also Y would be greater than equal to 80 as we have that the airline reserves at least 20 seats for the first class and it's also given that at least four times as many passengers prefer to travel by economy class than by the first class. So from this we have Y greater than equal to 4X and Y greater than equal to 80. Now X plus Y would be the total number of tickets sold as it's given that the maximum capacity of the airplane is 200 passengers. So this means that the total number of tickets sold would be less than or equal to 200. Now profit obtained by selling tickets of first class would be equal to $400 which is the profit made on one first class ticket into the number of first class tickets which is X. So this would be equal to $400X. Next the profit obtained by selling Y tickets of economy class would be equal to the profit obtained by selling one ticket of economy class that is $300 into Y which is the number of economy class tickets sold. So this would be equal to $300 Y. So the total profit would be equal to $400X plus $300 Y. So we can say the profit function is given by Z equal to $400X plus $300Y. Also as the number of tickets cannot be negative therefore we also have that X greater than equal to zero and Y greater than equal to zero. Now as the total profit is to be maximized so the given linear programming problem can be written as maximize Z equal to $400X plus $300Y. Subject to the constraints that is these are the constraints X greater than equal to 20, Y greater than equal to 4X, Y greater than equal to 80, X plus Y less than equal to $200 then the non-negative constraints X greater than equal to zero and Y greater than equal to zero. Now first of all we will find the feasible region for this first of all we draw the graphs of X equal to 20, Y equal to 4X, Y equal to 80, X plus Y equal to $200. So we have drawn the graphs this is the line X equal to 20, this is the line Y equal to 80, this is the line X plus Y equal to $200 and this line shows the equation Y equal to 4X. Now consider the in equation X greater than equal to 20, now as you can see that the point 00 does not satisfy X greater than equal to 20 since we put X as zero we get 0 greater than equal to 20 which is not true. Therefore the origin 00 does not lie in the region X greater than equal to 20. So this line X equal to 20 and the region 2 is right hand side and above the X axis represents X greater than equal to 20. Now consider the in equation Y greater than equal to 4X, now when we put 00 in this that is X0 and Y0 we get 0 greater than equal to 0 which is true therefore we can say the origin 00 satisfies the in equation Y greater than equal to 4X. And thus the origin lies in the region Y greater than equal to 4X. So the line Y equal to 4X and the region 2 is right and above the X axis represents the in equation Y greater than equal to 4X. Next we have the in equation Y greater than equal to 80. Now we observe that the point 00 does not satisfy Y greater than equal to 80 therefore we say that the origin O does not lie in the region Y greater than equal to 80. So this line Y equal to 80 and the region above this but to the right hand side of the Y axis since Y is greater than equal to 0 would represent the in equation Y greater than equal to 80. Consider the in equation X plus Y less than equal to 200, now let's see if origin satisfies this in equation or not. Putting X equal to 0 and Y equal to 0 we have 0 plus 0 is less than equal to 200 and this is true therefore we say that the point 00 satisfies the in equation X plus Y less than equal to 4X. So this is equal to 200 and therefore the origin O lies in the region plus Y less than equal to 200. So X plus Y less than equal to 200 is represented by the line X plus Y equal to 200 and the region to its left hand side including the origin but above the X axis and to the right of the Y axis only. The region common to all these in equations is the feasible region. So this shaded region represented by the points A, B, C is the feasible region. This point A has coordinates 20, 80, point B has coordinates 40, 160 and the point C has coordinates 20, 180. So we say the shaded region A, B, C is the feasible region. Since in this problem we are supposed to maximize the profit so we would use the iso profit method. For this we will assign a constant value to the objective function Z let the objective function Z equal to 400X plus 300Y be given a constant value. Say 12,000 then we get a line 400X plus 300Y is equal to 12,000 or 4X plus 3Y is equal to 120. Now let this be equation 1. We will draw a line P1Q1 to represent this equation 1. This is the line P1Q1 which represents this equation 1. Now we will give another constant value to the objective function Z. So now let the objective function Z equal to 400X plus 300Y be given a constant value 16,000. We get a line 400X plus 300Y equal to 16,000 or 4X plus 3Y equal to 160. Let this be equation 2. Now we will draw a line P2Q2 to represent the equation 2 time P2Q2 which is parallel to P1Q1 and this represents the equation 2 which is 4X plus 3Y equal to 160. Now we will move from P1Q1 to P2Q2 and so on that is we move in the increasing direction away from the origin. So as to get a line which is farthest from the origin and has at least one point in common with the feasible region ABC. So we obtain this line P3Q3 which is parallel to the set of lines P1Q1, P2Q2 and so on. And this line has a point B common with the feasible region. Now if we move this line P3Q3 above the point B then this line will be out of the feasibility region. So this means this point B which coordinates 4160 is the farthest point away from the origin. Thus we can say that the point B which coordinates 4160 gives the maximum value of the objective function Z. Hence we can say the optimal solution equal to 40Y equal to 160. The optimal value of the objective function Z is equal to 400X that is 400 into 40 plus 300Y that is 300 into Y. And so we have here 16000 plus 48000 is the optimal value of Z which is equal to C4000. This is the optimal value of Z thus we can now say 60 tickets economy class to maximise the profit $4000. So this is our final answer. This completes the session. Hope you have understood the solution of this question.


Ahhhh, good evening morning. Good evening, nyeum, nyeum, nyeum.   Look at me. I'm as helpless as a kitten up a tree. You can follow us on Instagram and do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Do it all! Anyways, but um, after last week the teaser to Mission Mongol, it was such a teaser, made me laugh, it kind of tickled, but it was really short. Yep. It has a ton of people in it, including one that I missed and you got really angry at me. I know, as you're sorry. But it was as much as I don't like teasers for the most part, it was a good teaser and it showed us really good CGI. They know about this story, the one we read in the comments that it was the cheapest mission. It costed less than the budget to gravity, the film. Which is crazy. Crazy. As it should be. And that is something to be proud of. But it has, obviously, Akshay Kumar, Tapsi Panu, Vidoz, Vidya, and Sonakshi. I think Vidya, I could be the only one who could be mad at me, is the one that you missed, the one I missed, that everybody got mad. Sorry, we haven't seen any of our work, we're still grown, we're still babies.  Here we go. There's no science without experiments. Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? Experiment? I am the only country in the world who can reach Mars in the first attempt. So, they need a team of five. Please, sir. We are working for an experience. After that, we will fly. No, sir. We are not getting married, but we are getting married in a bungalow. And we are talking about getting married in this apartment. You had to get married in space, so I had to wait for five years. Why do you have to wait for five years? Because you are getting married now. Guys, we need a young man for his mission. Look at his face. What are you doing at night?  I am not like that. It will be a complex program. I am not excited. For the first time, we are going to do it. How will we fit our instruments? This is impossible, sir. We need an experience team. And all of this... Who has the experience of going to Mars in this room? Now you go and ask. Where will you get the money from? It's impossible. In this trajectory, we will be able to do something with the fuel. It's impossible. Yeah. The chances of this mission will be less than one percent. Okay. I want to know how we will do it. And we will do it, sir. This is going to be fricking... We are going to do it, sir. This is going to be... Stand up and scream. Like... There is a rocket down the mission control initiative. Command for launch. Go! Go, sir! Go, sir! Go! Looks great. Good job. I really want to see it because one... Who doesn't love a good space movie? Yeah. But that's also a story you don't know. So, Maron and me, a lot of... I came out a couple years back. What was the one with... About those old people behind the scenes? The math people? Oh! Yeah. Hidden figures. Hidden figures. Great movie. If you haven't seen Hidden Figures, great movie. It reminds me a lot of that style. Me, too. Of a space movie. Very much. It's not really about Apollo 5. Right. It's not really them on the space mission. Right. It's not the astronauts in space. It's about the team on the ground trying to fully make what they need to get done. Yeah. I mean, that very last shot, very well could be the last shot of the thing. Yeah. It does remind me a lot of that. And it is. Because that's what Hidden Figures is about. It's about creating a space program to make this particular trip that no one's made before. The space race where they're trying to get ahead of Russia. Whereas obviously here, the rest of the world's looking at them and the United States had done a trip. So this... I'm excited for this one. The United States went billions of dollars. Yeah. Less than a movie. Right. Right. Less than a movie budget. Yeah. It was a big movie budget. No doubt. But holy cow. This looks great. I don't know if they've updated the IMDb. And we've got two of the three ladies that were in pink. And that was our first introduction to them. Was in pink. Those actresses. You know, I was just trying to stop using them. Forgive me for forgetting your name, dear lady. What was it? Oh, this one right here? Creti? Yes. Gotcha. Yeah, you're right. Okay. Yeah. Curty. Curty. And this is... Yeah, this is the one. She's in that trailer a lot. A lot. A lot. Belan. She's in Kahane. Yeah. And you know what? Not only was the CGI. You notice I said one point. The lighting. With the production design and the lighting team and the cinematography. It looks like it's a really top notch quality film and with a great story. And this is interesting. Is it all females that were the main people of this mission? Of the team. That would be interesting because that's one of the central themes about hidden figures. Yeah. Which, but different because hidden figures takes place back in the 1960s. In America. In America. You've got two big issues in that. You have racism and sexism going on that are massive at the time. Yeah. But yeah, this looks very much like this team has comprised mostly of... Outside of an... Akshay. Yeah. And one other person who wasn't that... I forget the actor's name, but we saw him first in PK. He was one of the three guys, not PK, in Three Idiots. He was one of the guys with Amir in Three Idiots, I think. Was he? I think so. Yeah, he just looks much... Yeah, you're right actually. It is, right? Sharman. Sharman. Sharman Joshi. Joshi. Yeah, I recognized him from Three Idiots. I'm excited for this one. Yeah. I think this is going to be a great movie. Did it say it comes out on the 15th? Yeah. Well, everything is coming out on the 15th. I don't know what to see that day. All I know is, you know what I'm excited for? Second guns. Well, the day after that, August 16th. What is it? Sartaj's birthday. Is it really? Why wouldn't they drop sacred games on Sartaj's birthday? They kind of are, because I know people are going to watch it over and over again through midnight. That's true. Yeah. But have you seen my Sartaj tattoo? No. What would you do if I... I might do that. It's just a blowy on my mind. That's true. I didn't see him in there. I was looking for him. And that's a great poster. I just am very impressed with the production design, the quality of what we've seen. I'm excited for this. A bunch of people, we are very excited to learn about. Because she's renowned. Yeah. Especially from Kahani, which I remember when we did that trailer reaction, people told us to see it. And we haven't seen it yet, but we are going to. We know there's a ton we haven't seen yet. But yeah, there's a whole bunch of people that I'm excited to know about. Topsy, of course. Of course. And she was not really recognizable in this. Not necessarily, no. Unless you were looking for her. If I didn't know she was in this, I probably wouldn't have recognized her. I could have missed it. It was Topsy. Yeah, I could have missed it. So I wonder, I think she probably has the biggest part of it. It looks like Topsy's supporting. Yeah. But I do love a good supporting film. Some roles, as we know, most actual supporting roles can be better than lead roles for sure. The interest in the character, the uniqueness of the character. Wow. I just realized I had a dream about Gary Oldman last night. Weird. I did. Just talking about supporting actors reminded me of some dream I had about Gary Oldman in the supporting role. Was he clothed? Yes. Corbin. Well, this was fantastic. Let us know what you thought of it down in the comments below. Let us know, obviously, whatever we missed. If I missed an actor or an actress, forgive me. God, please, guys. Really? I'm a baby. It's true. You realize we've been exposed to this for like six months now. We're still tiny teens. We are very excited.