Firstly the subject title is a tad misleading because while I am fascinated by everything Jim Kim said at the recent 96 hours of world bank meetings - (i'll do some bookmark research and post 96 hours pf links in a few days)
What I am interested in is the most unusual things he said and the questions they could have stimulated
So a few weeks on the thing that I recall (every day partly because ebola on the nightly news triggers a neighbouring grey cell ) was his story of serving drug resistant tuberculosis patients in slum in Peru. He commented on the apparent fury of experts that the teh n young Kim should be trying to do any such thing. He clarified it wasnt they had practical tips on , at the time they wanted to run me out of the country (though one of my then enemies has since become a good friends)
So my question - why did the experts hate jim kim at that time? Or indeed why do experts anywhere sometimes come up with such a response?
I would love any answers you have, or of course posting of any question directly related to 96 hours with Kim. I post this because conventional wisdom when it tries to monopolise (instead of free voice) has always been something its in my scottish genes to provide space to question. And while collaboration is in my view the defining advantage of the net generation, it seems as yet to be something in NGO HQ world that I have only previously seen at partners in health and one other large ngo -That is wholly socially valued in ways that I would have trusted in every stakeholder way