 It came out of several sources or several impetuses. One was we were concerned that there wasn't much high quality training that was available, particularly for the developing world, in the late 90s or early 2000. There were some training courses by contract officials and by contract houses, but none of it was did we consider it particularly rigorous or did we consider it particularly clear about what was going on in evaluation? And we'd linked this at the same time. We had one other thing going on at the same time, which was ideas, that we needed to sort of start a professional association of people from around the world. And now ideas is more than a thousand people, a thousand members, but we sort of thought we'll do the training and we'll do the professional association and between the two of them we'll kind of start making a momentum towards trying to strengthen particular development or evaluation in the development context, highlights. I kind of, I don't know that I would point to particular episodes or events. I mean, there were some really wonderful presentations by Mike Patton and others that, I mean, much like last year. I mean, this was this blue marble event of Mike's was really good, but I think the point I would say is one of the real highlights is the stress on community. And we had community of learners. We had a community of people becoming professionals in various ways and we had a community of people who liked and trusted each other. And those communities gelled. They came together in a way that created a strong kind of synthesis of people from different places and it brought them together into a community that was really quite bonded. And now multiple years later from the first years of IPDENT I still get emails from people that were in 2007, 2009 who, I mean, 10 years ago, 12 years ago, 14 years ago who asked about a question, something they thought IPDENT could try to help them on a bit. And so the highlight was probably the coalescing of the communities. It was not episodes per se. I mean, there were a lot of fun times, times we went downtown and listened to the jazz festival and times that, I mean, we saw some really good jazz performances and so on. But the bigger, the broader issue was, I think, the fact that all these people found a way to come together and they were not sort of just left by themselves. I think this is a bit difficult to say, but I think evaluation has fractured a bit. I think evaluation is less under one umbrella. It's under multiple methods. It's under multiple strains. It's got the quantitative and qualitative, which are less combative now than they were. But they're spinoffs. There's like the whole discussion on big data, which is kind of like really on its own terms and kind of in its own world. This is not a shared conversation in evaluation. In fact, I think there are very few shared conversations right now. I think we're kind of splintering in a way that's, for example, other new disciplines like social psychology and the way that you see geospatial measurements and so on, sort of splintering off a bit from wherever it was the core, the core is less clear. And what there are now are just lots of pockets of interest. And the consequence of that is we don't talk to each other very well and we don't talk to each other very precisely because we're starting to increasingly have a fracture of the language. The different people are doing different kinds of things. I've just published a book, or I'm going to publish a book, about the consequences of bringing the economics language into evaluation. Evaluators don't have the same understanding of supply and demand that economists do. And yet, evaluators use terms like supply and demand without a lot of precision or a lot of clarity as to what they in fact mean. And by sort of default, there is a presumption that if you know economics, you know what we mean in evaluation. It's not true. We have got a transposition of language happening that's leaving us somewhat more fractured and less capable of talking to each other because we're using different disciplines. And the consequence of using different disciplines is that people don't start from the same position. Where do I see the future? I see it sort of emerging in a couple of ways. I think one way is going to be like what's happened to other new disciplines. And I use social psychology as my example. It's going to fracture. Different academic environments create different kind of fractures. And the only pipeline we have really is the pipeline from the universities. We're not getting trained people out of government. We're not getting trained people out of private sector. The only place we're really getting people is from the university. And every university kind of has a variation on a theme. And so the consequence is we're not very coherent. And I think that I don't know that that will be a problem because it'll be the evolving of the discipline. But we won't be very much affiliated or linked to each other in 10 years the way we are now. And even now we're less affiliated and linked than we were 10 years ago before this. But the language problem, the pipeline problem and the schism sort of between first world and developing world is getting greater rather than smaller. I'm sad to say that but that's kind of just what I think is happening. I mean as I sit and look at this discipline it's less and less a discipline. It's multiple smaller disciplines each with their own take. And universities are not helping. Universities are in fact exacerbating the distinctions because it's the only pipeline we have. And every one of these universities kind of has its own pipeline. And they're each kind of pushing their particular orientation on their students. And not so different that's been going on in other disciplines. But we're maturing. And part of maturing is also fracturing rather than coalescing. I mean now you look at some disciplines like astrophysics and they're fractured all over the place between the people that are sort of debating whether to go to the moon or Mars or whether the people are debating that it's even worth going to the moon or Mars. And those are pretty significant debates for them. We're having our own debates.