 They'll be learning by doing, because obviously, a consortium board to make decisions on the technicalities, for example, of programs of 16 centres working in different continents on different subjects is totally beyond them, so the role of existing boards, the role of host country agreements and all those things have still got to be resolved. I don't think those issues of governance have been looked at, some of which have major implications, for example, I mean clearly, Erie will continue to need the inputs that it can get from a technical point of view of its board with a good spread of people who have skills in those areas. Probably won't need to worry so much about, if you like, the sort of the basic accounting and all those kind of things, because supposedly now there is a sort of centralised legal system with, presumably, checks and balances for monitoring that. So some of the headaches, you know, this whole business of getting every step, I mean everything, the amount of paperwork, came back to CG, you know, to the CG secretariat for all sorts of reasons, statistics and numbers of women scientists and all that. A lot of that will go now, so that they're not saying those things aren't important, but, you know, there will be greater priorities on actually getting delivery of outcomes, which is what donors want, rather than a whole lot of statistics that nobody ever uses, and which have frustrated DGs and others for quite some time. So I think there will be a lot of learning by doing, because this is a change, and as I say, donors in particular can be perverse in terms of the way they change, not least if there's a recession back home, and they suddenly decide to cut their support. Research is usually seen as the soft touch, and then there are problems. I mean the UK, for example, fortunately, has decided of all of its programs, although it's got to have a 25% cut across all government departments, international development has been ring-fenced and won't be touched, which in a way is good news for the CJR, even though there will probably be some internal adjustments as to what goes for research, what goes for development, what goes to health, as opposed to agriculture, what goes to water, what is cross-cutting, so there's some dialogues there. But I mean, I think it's, I would imagine that in the long run it will provide greater stability. You won't have 64 donors all doing their own thing, it's just to some extent what happened before, and for centres having to go and, you know, go and genuinely reflect in front of donors in order to get support and be competing against their fellow DGs and others in what is not always a collegial way.