 This is my first presentation, giving a state of the feather as president. I was recently elected to name that. I have a tendency to start fast and accelerate, so feel free to interject or ask questions. I'm currently ASF president. I'm also assistant secretary as Rich stated, VP of whimsy, which is actually a real title. There's a project by the name of whimsy that I helped create. I've studied a lot of these. I've attended and I've studied a lot of these state of the feathers. They typically start out with some statistics talking about committees, members, PMCs, potlings and groups. I'll come back to that later and they also start with a pretty graph. Okay. Genders tend to start with things like how we got here, what we believe in, and how we are different. I'm going to do it slightly different. This presentation is not just, Apache is great. I will talk about how many good things we do, but I'll also identify what works and what I think, where there's some more work that needs to be done. In fact, in essence, it's going to give the scene or talks I've seen sort of backwards. Apache, as Rich said, has been around for 18-plus years. We're continuing to grow by every measure. No matter how you look at it, we are growing. More importantly, we expect to continue to be around and we expect to continue to grow. So this foundation is thriving, perhaps even a bit too fast. If there's anything we worry about, we worry about the fact that we're growing too fast. Can we keep up? Can we continue to grow? Our secret, diversity, independence and openness. I've distilled this from a number of places on our website and the like. These are the things that make us what we are. Excerpts from the incubation exit criteria. Demonstrate an active and diverse development community. There's at least three legally independent computers. No single company or entity has successfully project and developed and execute in public. These are sort of core to what we are. And more importantly, we mean it. No one committer has more say than any other committer as to what code is accepted. No one PMC member has any more say than any other PMC member. All ASF members have equal votes. No director has any more ability to set the policy than any other director. Everyone is equal. Concrete example, Tomcat. A bunch of people here probably know what that project is and have been involved with it in one way or another. I was the first non-sun release manager for Tomcat. I've been here for 17 years, directed for 13 years. I'm an ASF member since 2000 apparently. And I currently hold the title of ASF president. While I'm no longer active on that particular project, there's lots of projects I'm active on. Tomcat's not one of them at the moment. I'm fully confident that I'd be welcomed back promptly and enthusiastically if I chose to participate again. That's just how we tend to operate. But more importantly, but only as an equal. I've seen examples over time when individuals have come back to individual projects and expect to have a special status based on their prior history. That's not how we work. Not saying it's easy. We encounter BDFL, an affluent dictator for life, wannabes, and incubation. We do have people who... There are projects outside the ASF who operate quite successfully that way. Just not inside the ASF. We do not allow such things. Everyone being equal is an important tenant to us. We have PMCs wanting to release without votes. Everyone has a reason why they want to release faster. They want to do all sorts of things. But unless it's got the backing of the PMC demonstrably, that's important to us that it... That's how we do releases. We have over-exupant companies wanting to create press releases talking about employees' leadership when they become PMC chairs. And immediately we have Sally on the far left who might help correct them in their perceptions. We do not have leaders here. We have a bunch of equals. And we have gray beards. Sorting back in the day, things were done differently and alike. They also are equals. We also are equals. I'm not saying it's equal. I'm not saying it's easy. Contributors are important. No contributors are replaceable. These two statements are both true even though they are slightly in conflict. Everyone is important. Everyone is replaceable. It's important to us that a project continues to thrive if any one person or one company or one anything chooses to leave. We have people over time who do leave. We talk about that in terms of community over code. The community to us is more important than the fact that we've got to coddle one individual contributor who feels that they are more special than others. I'm not saying it's easy. Another place where it's not easy. We have a business-friendly license. We welcome and appreciate donates from generous sponsors. We have a strict vendor neutral policy. We want the contributions of our sponsors. We want the people who are employed by companies to participate. We want the companies to go take their stuff back, but we do not give companies any special treatment based on that. That's a difficult balance to constantly strive for, particularly when we are looking for revenue. I'm not saying it's easy. 100 people planning 100 small conferences may work, but having 20 people planning one big conference doesn't work. So trying to find out where the balances are because we have a couple of individual cases, mostly in operations where we end up saying we need a more strict hierarchy versus equality. Letting a PMC have their own brand policy may affect other PMCs ability to force their mark. That's something that we had a lengthy discussion on the board with for the last several months. I'm pleased with how that turned out. Having committers work on what they want to work on may work, but having sysadmins choosing on their fund tickets doesn't. To run the business, you actually need to actually have things done in order, in priority, and the like. Our way to address that last point is sometimes the solution is to turn non-fund or time-critical tasks into paid positions. While we have substantial reserves, we're currently running an unsustainable deficit. I won't show the numbers here. They are available to all, but we actually are running a deficit, a significant deficit for the first time. We do have substantial reserves, more than a year's reserves, but we do need to figure out how to fund ourselves better. Expanding the pool of sponsors may run up the questions as to ROI, return on investment. We talk to sponsors every day, and it's very... I mean, you can get sponsors for things like Apache Con because you get boost base and all sorts of things, but what do you get for sponsoring Apache? Well, you get a mention in our thanks page. It's looking rather hard to figure out how we can improve that without compromising who we are. Not saying it's easy, but things that are worth doing aren't always easy, and supporting communities that have made the ASF a home for these 18-plus years is definitely worth doing. We're capping our core values, diversity, independence, and openness. Hopefully, what I just said is more of an appreciation as to what we mean by those and where we actually struggle on trying to find the balances and why they're important to our longevity. Any one of us could disappear, and hopefully the whole foundation will continue. Even when we have rare exceptions, there are places where we don't have a strict equality. We do have hierarchies, and I hope that doesn't minimize the message I'm trying to send. We struggle over each of those times. Returning to the statistics, we've got 58-22 committers by my last count. That doesn't distinguish between people who are committers only on a podling, in other words, they haven't been successfully through incubation and the number of committers who've been around for a lot longer. But even so, we have thousands of people who have been, in essence, taught the Apache way and participate as equals on one of our many projects. 684 people have been recognized for their sustained contributions as members. 181 PMCs, depending on how you count, we've got different numbers for that, but it's all in this ballpark. These are active PMCs that are producing the code bases that many of us use. 59 podlings, these are the wannabe projects. These are the ones that will end up, many of them will end up graduating and become full-fledged projects once they end up graduating. So we have a large queue of projects that are want to join us, and that's part of our growth. That number being that big means we're going to continue to grow. And 96 other various assorted other groups, but hopefully now you see more context for these numbers. It's reason why I did my presentation backwards, and I'm giving you some more... The pretty graph I went by quickly. The most important thing is the orange-ish line that is showing growth of the number of projects. I'm pleased to say that's sort of linear. It's not really exponential. So in other words, we actually are growing. We're actually maintaining a growth pattern. The slight downturn you see here is we're actually more active recently retiring projects that have gotten to the point where there aren't people pertaining on them. But the fact it's linear means it's probably manageable. If it were exponential, I'd be more scared. But we do have issues that we need to deal with, in managing growth. And finally, an appreciation with the following enables sponsors and donors, platinum sponsors. I'm not going to read all their names, but basically we've got a large number of platinum sponsors and we've got substantial commitment to the ASF, gold sponsors, silver sponsors, bronze. Infrastructure sponsors, people that sponsor individual things in infrastructure. A special thanks to Apache Con and Apache Big Data Sponsors. These rich show the slide for it. It's a little more of an eye chart than my case, but I tried to get all of them on there. And you too can support Apache if you choose to do so. There is this icon on... We're trying to get it on all of our pages. We're not quite there yet. But we'll see it at least on our main pages, on many of our project pages. You click on that and you'll go to another place that will end up giving you all sorts of different options to contribute. And I said I start fast and accelerate. Thank you.