 Great. So I'll just real quickly introduce again, this is Lauren Spell of the OpenStack Foundation and we're about to have David Bluestone from ClearPass Communication run through some research that they've been doing over the past couple of months regarding OpenStack and the OpenStack Foundation brand. So with that, I will... And just to note, we are recording this. If you didn't hear the prompt, just so everyone's aware, so we'll be able to share it with people that aren't able to attend. Yeah, thank you. Great. Well, with that, I will turn it over to David. Great. Thank you, Lauren. I'm going to share my screen so everyone can see. Is this... Is this the wrong screen? Let's see here. Hold on one second. Yeah, I think it looks good. Yeah. Can you see my screen? Yeah. Okay, great. Go. Fantastic. So thank you, Lauren. I can kick off and kind of give an overview of what we've done over the last six weeks or so. And I have about 20, 25 to present if people have questions, you know, I'll pause and I will certainly like welcome people to ask and clarifications or questions about the EV slides. But then I think the plan is to pass it back to Lauren and the OpenSec team for Q&A at the end. So people will have opportunities to weigh in. At the outset, I'm going to explain a little bit about my firm ClearPath and the research we've done. Again, my name is David Flussone. I am a principal founder of ClearPath. We have been doing research in the tech space, open source space for five years now with a number of different clients from NCF, Crop Foundry, as well as some of the larger companies, you know, tech platforms. But we have a lot of experience working with foundations, open source foundations specifically on market trends, tech trends, and generally, you know, what the purposes of foundations are to our decision makers, audience, I teach decision makers. So with that, I'll go to the second slide, which is just letting you know what exactly I'm basing this presentation on, which is both quantitative and qualitative in nature. We did four focus groups, started off doing four focus groups, two in Seattle and two in Beijing. We are focus groups consisted of ops, dev ops, sys admins, and architects. Our four roles were represented in these four focus groups. We also conducted for in-depth interviews with open source influencers, representatives from Baidu, Google, Microsoft, and Tencent. With space on the qualitative research, based on what we were seeing and hearing, kind of with that open-ended listening, we prepared a survey to, as Lauren said, test kind of open-stacked technology and foundation branch positioning, as well as kind of where open-stack and open-source sits in the market. That survey was conducted from the end of August to the beginning of September. Just over one, one responded over 500. We got an extra straggler in there, but it was an annual 500 sample. This is a global survey across 10 countries, I've listed them here in five languages. And we waited them to be evenly distributed across those three regions, North America, Asia, and Europe. And we consisted of roles, including ops and architects, dev ops, IT managers, CIO, CTO, CTO, and line of business. You can see the percentages there in the breakdown. The goal, stepping back, the goal is we're trying to be broad, we're trying to broaden scope and broaden scale, so we have a real pulse in the market. I'll go through a couple regional differences as I go to this slide, but it's very important to not just be focused on US or focused on a specific country or a specific type of role, we're trying to get broad ideas to make our opinion. So if there are no questions, I will continue. So let me get straight into the key findings. We kind of identified three big buckets based on the research for OpenStack specifically, but also more broadly about the market. First, OpenStack itself as a reputation is quite powerful. It is known as being a very powerful tool, very flexible, customizable, and also, quite frankly, it's quite difficult to master as a complex technology. When compared to other players in the market, OpenStack's brand is quite solid and it compares favorably to all the other companies that we tested with a strong majority, 64%, giving it a favorable rating. The more people know about OpenStack, the more they like it. I think this is important. We tested awareness and then we cut that capability question by awareness. You can see as people are more familiar with OpenStack, the more they like it. That is a sign of strong brand health because it means the more they know about you, the stronger your value is to these responses. Second, so that's just a level set, right? We wanted to see where we stand with the market. Second, what does the foundation mean to people? And both in terms of general, what does an ideal foundation mean, but also OpenStack specifically? And we found this is something interesting. We went into this research not knowing exactly what the response would say, like where do they think about foundations? What do they think the role of foundations are? And here the data was an ambiguous in that respondents look to foundations to curate projects. It's not to house all the projects, not to be overly prescriptive, but it's to provide a curated path to help them navigate, in this case, open source infrastructure, but it's to navigate the technology. The projects themselves are what's more important than the activities of the foundation. So anything the foundation does to promote and improve the experience of the actual projects is what folks are looking for. They don't necessarily think first about the foundation. It's all about, are the foundations helping support the project that I care about and that I'm using to do my job? The other point here is we tested the concept of open infrastructure. This is something obviously that has been discussed in the context of the summit, could discuss in the context of some of the project work and the new project coming under the OpenSec foundation umbrella. Open infrastructure in and of itself is a very compelling idea. We heard this especially in the focus groups, but it's very uncertain of what it is. You have to define it in order for it to have real meaning because otherwise people kind of pull what they think. I think they commonly associate open infrastructure with open source infrastructure, open source technology infrastructure, but it needs to be explicit, it needs to be kind of, we need to be out ahead of this to define it, otherwise people can get confused. That being said, once it's discussed, once it's defined for them, it is a very compelling idea. We see and we tested the idea of potentially changing the OpenStack summit's name to be the Open Infrastructure Summit. I will show you the data, but it came back very positive in terms of people that brought in more people. And lastly, we focus on open source as kind of a trend and having a market, and it is just very clear that open source is the spine, you know, and it is the foundation, that's unfortunately the worst because it's the foundation of the foundation. No, it's the backbone of why people are looking to foundations like OpenStack because it is the thing that unlocks their opportunities as users and as companies. And so the more OpenStack Foundation can articulate its vision for the future of OpenStack, the more we're aligning, the more VR, you know, very common trope in public opinionists, you know, meet people where they are. And what we meet people where they are is when we're kind of developing down an open source and our vision approaches. So those are broad strokes. I will go into the data that underpins these kind of big findings and then I'll wrap up with, you know, some observations. Yeah. So first let's talk about the brand. I mentioned this before. It's not that the foundation brand isn't relevant. It's just that the respondents here when we ask about awareness, they're just not as focused on the foundation as they are in technology. And you can see here on the left side, we ask, you know, this familiarity awareness question and OpenStack as technology is highly ahead beyond the margin of error. I should have mentioned the margin errors as more or less 4%. You can't technically calculate it because the panel study, you don't know the overall universe of ITDMs. But if you were to apply the same margin of error calculation as you would for any survey, you'd get about 4%. And you can see here, if you add variant somewhat together, OpenStack as technology, you know, 59% say they're very or somewhat familiar with it where the OpenStack foundation is more like 52%. That's beyond the margin of error. That suggests, you know, and also that's pretty good. You know, we're talking about some majorities here. When you ask, you know, whether they end up interviews, that's the first quote in yellow or the focus group quote, you know, what do they say about when we're talking about OpenStack and with the bottom quote, it's how you have control, it's safe, you can customize everything less constrained, less limitations. But the migration is very tough. That goes to my first point on the key finding side, which is, you know, OpenStack has a strong, powerful brand, but it is also known as something of some parts. And then we, you know, the top quote you all could read, but I'll reiterate here that, you know, OpenStack was the beginning of the evolution towards corporate contributions to open source and my estimation. That was the first time I saw large companies publicly dedicating large amounts of dough for two-in-a-son projects. So it's known. These are what people think of when we're talking about OpenStack. You know, I think again, some of the things we heard about how you kind of, what the requirements are to use it as a, to unblock the power and promise OpenStack is, you know, you have to raise or keep a technical team to keep development going or you need to like, you better know your stuff. This is common. So that is, you know, I think it's a good place because people know what OpenStack is, they know more or less that there's a foundation around it and it has very clear positive and, you know, also that difficult to use part of its purpose. If you go to the next slide, or if I go to the next slide, sorry, we do some favorability ratings. This is very common, you know, the way that we ask it here where you ask about intensity, very favorable, then we have the top numbers, overall favorability. The bottom number, just because a lot of these companies don't intend their strong, negative opinions, we group together kind of untrapable and neutral and never heard. That means it's not just a positive opinion. So that's why I have a kind of the pattern colored there because most of these are driven by neutral or never heard. But still, what I think is the takeaway from your slide is that OpenStack right there is a 67% favorable overall, 33% very favorable. And that's in line with the other players here, you know, Google platform is probably ahead of everyone amongst the folks we talked to, then Azure, OpenStack, Red Hat, AWS, and then Rackspace, all kind of within the margin of error. The, you know, we also, we all said that some other companies have represented out here, including Alley Cloud, Baidu, Huawei, Tencent, they have higher neutrals, which push down their overall favorability, but in general, I think our main point here is that OpenStack certainly has positivity and it's in line with all the other, the other competition that's in the space. Possibly, what I think is even more interesting is when you kind of look at this, like I said, at the outset, by their ability, you know, you look at, you cut this by varying some of favorable versus just a little and not favorable and you see almost a 20% swing. So the more, again, I've said this now several times, so the more people know about OpenStack the more they like it. 91% is quite strong. We also broke this down by region and you can see OpenStack, that's particularly strongly rating in Asia. That's driven by China, which has a 2% favorable and then US is also disproportionately favorable relative to North America, but also relative to the overall population at 67, 69% favorable. We also broke this down by ITDM role where CIO CTOs actually have a higher variability than overall with 75%. The other roles are on average. The IT network is gonna 68% slightly above and then the DevOps, Devs and Ops are gonna do 60% which is slightly below. And lastly, we did do by company size as well and you see our enterprise like OpenStack more than on our price, 71% favorable in just a few times. So some of these cuts we offer just to show you, you know, it's not beyond below the top line number. There are some differences and that's why it's important to kind of get a broad scope of this research. Nothing to me, the big take away from this slide is, you know, OpenStack is disproportionately seen favorably in Asia and, you know, amongst people who know it. So the more OpenStack can do to get its name out there and to get it sort of nearly heared it up, the more positive feedback benefits to positive feedback that you received from that. And then obviously Asia is a very important market and a market that's very receptive. Going to the next slide. We did ask some terms, you know, we had statements, you know, what do you like? What is it, how compelling? Is it a reason to use OpenStack? So we kind of, these are in political terms like the proof points, the biographical statements and you wanna see what pops. Here, you know, this is not all of the statements. These are the top statements we asked others. And I wanna point out, you know, first a lot within the margin of error there, that's why we had to include so many is like the top proof point. But, you know, what is, what bubbles up? It's about the community, the numbers, you know, that's the first one. We also have intensity here. We give this on a scale of zero to five. So the five, they're dark red and the fours, very represented by light red. And the last number is the total of both. You can see some intensity around the partner, you know, the members, that's a good third party credibility point. Those two are also in your top. The last compelling statements just as a point of comparison. So what didn't make this top list? It was about kind of like how the foundation started. It was using the narrow case studies, I think we asked a narrow case study around a couple of the members and how they're using OpenStack. Those messages didn't do as well. They were actually 50 or below in terms of overall compelling to use, the reason to use OpenStack. From the data, from the qualitative data, it feels like it's not as relevant when you get more narrow around the specific cases and when you talk more about the foundation and the actual technology. But when you're talking about the community, when you're talking about the people backing it, which I think is another way to talk about the community. And the actual value of speed and flexibility and lower costs, those are the ones that bubble up. Those are statements that matter. So if the previous slide said that more people know about OpenStack, the more they like OpenStack, then these would be the things you'd wanna convey to help people know more. Moving to the next section. So what is the role? So we talked a lot about OpenStack as a tool and in the brand health of OpenStack as a technology. But what about the foundation itself? And what's the expectations around foundations for OpenSource? Generally in an OpenStack specifically. Here, first, let's level, again, a foundation is a good thing or a bad thing. And overwhelmingly people say that OpenSource participants need to be adopted by a foundation, 70%. That is, anytime you get kind of big spread like that, it's just a no-brainer. Only 4% say that they strongly believe that OpenSource innovations are hurt by being adopted by a foundation. So you're really talking about foundations being a good thing for OpenSource. On the right side, I think the statement here, this is a forced choice. So we basically force our participants to say one or the other and then we offer them kind of, they can volunteer, don't know, they can volunteer, both. But you can see most people tend to get put into these buckets as a forced choice in our methodology. And you can see here, almost 60-40, say that the best model for an OpenSource foundation is one that selectively works on projects and makes it easier to use, right? So this idea of curation. I want to emphasize that because, that I think we went into this research without knowing the answer. The other option was that it's one that brings in a large number of projects. Some will succeed, some won't. And it just continues to support all the projects. There are OpenSource foundations that kind of fit the bill for either one. And we had genuinely no sense of, we had hypotheses that this would be a dividing line. But the fact that it's almost 60-40 in favor of kind of being more selective, being more of a curating entity that curates how these projects work and how to make them better. I think that's a big finding. And below, I want to get some context on this quote, but this influencer said, I don't think we want just a single foundation. We want foundations to be focused on a particular thing. So it's not about just one foundation to hold them all. That owns all the projects and some work and some don't. It's about just a more purposeful. It's about a more selective and a more proactive foundation that kind of focuses on the thing that they do and then making sure that they support it with the projects. And quite frankly, I do think that's interesting because it wasn't a foreground conclusion. Again, we asked this not only in the quantitative and qualitatively, three out of our four kind of influencer also said that that second model of curation was their preference, which is the metric we want to unlock. We want to be the type of, we would recommend open source foundation tries to be the foundation that resonates in terms of what people are looking for, the ideal foundation. So that is best to come through. Going to the next slide, we also asked about the ideal characteristics and apologies, my PDF kind of, I think, got a little wonky and formatting on the right side. But you can see here, there's a very broad sense of the primary role of a good open source foundation. I think it's muddled. Again, this gets to the idea that any foundation needs to be very clear and articulated vision very clearly because what's expected of them is a little fuzzy. Anytime you see, basically from 14 to 10, that's all within the margin of error. So it's kind of, people want open source foundations to set standards, that's the number one. And then it's just muddled in terms of, how do they do that? So again, just setting, being very deliberate and setting the course and setting a vision and that's obviously the folks on this conference call are part of that, setting that roadmap. But that is what is necessary to cut through, otherwise it gets very fuzzy. Moving to the last slide, we also asked these questions qualitatively and there you're able to kind of ask the why. In surveys, you're only, you have one shot, you ask the question and then if you get a lot of responses, you're finding it's like people don't quite know. But for qualitative, you can say, so why or you have to follow up. And so we did ask that follow up. Okay, so like what exactly are these ideas kind of care-adjusted some people kind of listed a bunch. We said, okay, well, what if you were to focus on a particular one. And four came out that we thought consistently across both focus groups and the IDIs. The first one being narrow the choices to land credibility about which projects matter. So again, this is the why for curation or this is putting some granularity behind this idea of curation. What does that mean? It means narrowing the, all, right now, the space is overwhelming in terms of how much is coming at people. So being able to narrow the choices and then put your stamp of credibility on the project that matters. Make your project portfolio cohesive. Make, again, aligned behind one vision that people are looking for someone to make order and logic out of a lot of change. This creating standards keep through both in the qualitative and quantitative. So you can see that there is number three. And then, you know, be the, you know, provide the support and the visibility to help the projects that matter thrive. I'll stop there. I heard some, maybe some of that is quite often used, but these are questions. Yeah, good question methodology here. You asked all of these one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine questions. Can you let the person slide on? Is that correct? Yes. And so, you know, quick maps, the obviously shows you that we didn't get, that doesn't equal 100 because you might select one, but then we also, people say they don't know and I didn't include that number, but there's our staff people that, that is partly why I think there's muddle because you have a lot of people also reporting, don't know what the primary role would be. But yes, this is a select one. We offered these options and we forced them to choose a single option. Potentially, this would have been different if we could select all. We were actually forced them to choose because we wanted to get them more, we wanted them to trust their preference. And I think the correct all would have maybe created more muddle sense of things. But yes, that was the way that we shut up the question. Great, thanks. It looks kind of all over the place. I guess people- Yeah, I mean, that, we tried to set it up by doing the correct one in order to create a little bit more stratification in terms of the responses that you can still see here. It is quite muddled and that means, again, you know, right, in the qualitative, we can ask, well, what do you mean? What's the most important to do the follow-ups? But in the survey, you get this kind of muddled fuzziness, which means it's up to foundations to really make their tastes and to articulate their vision. But yeah, sometimes the results are, things are fuzzy and things aren't clear. Sometimes, you know, when you get that 70% of open source benefits from foundations, that's a very clear result. This one would be one of the more fuzzy results. I will continue. And please, anyone who has questions, just jump in. It's obviously, I don't want to, if you have something lingering, I would like everyone to just feel comfortable to just ask. Let me go to the next part. So, we did ask, we then, you know, asked about specific later in the survey, right? So we asked a bunch of questions around, general, what do you want to my foundation? What's the ideal foundation? And at the very end of the survey, we designed our research so that it's, you know, kind of a inverse triangle where we start brought in and then we get specific, also so that we don't cover any of the responses at the outset. And so our last section was very specifically around open stack. And we did ask about specific projects. And here, you know, I think in broad strokes, you have, you know, all over 50% in terms of definitely you're probably considered. That's a good thing, you know, like all of these projects, when given a short, and obviously you can't give, you know, the details that probably these warrant, but when given a short explanation, all of these generally, the majorities, and strong majorities, 58 to 68%, like these are considered these projects. I think it's worth mentioning that, you know, the original project, open stack, is still leading the way. That has both the most intensity, definitely consider, and the most overall kind of positive we consider, definitely are probably. So it's, you know, always worth mentioning that the other projects are useful in terms of, you know, curating and creating a better user experience. But, you know, the open stack project, the original stack project, is going to be the driver, it's the thing that brings people to the table. I think what's interesting here is that, that there are majorities who would consider the other projects that are not considering open stack, so you are bringing people in that are not necessarily only thinking about open stack, right? So when we did cross the episodes, folks would consider maybe Zul or Starling X or Kata, and you cross that with people would consider open stack. It wasn't one to one. It wasn't, I guess, a better analogy. It wasn't like a rectangle square. Not everyone who would consider open stack would be considering the other projects and vice versa. So you are bringing new folks to the table, which I think is important, and probably one of the motivations around you are all decision to bring in new projects. In terms of just a methodological point, I would basically say this takeaway here for me is open stack is ahead of the rest, but the rest are all within the margin of error. So, my statistics background would just, I wouldn't say, oh, everyone starts doing, focusing on Zul more than Airship. I would just consider that 60 to 40, 58% is all within the margin of error. It's a step change though, but it's a very low open stack, a regional project. So with that context around this idea that you can actually folks would consider these other projects who are not necessarily the thing that they consider open stack, but in fact it wasn't one to one. We did test, what about if you named a bunch of different summits and we put in as this doesn't exist yet, but open infrastructure summit as a potential name for a summit, what would you find appealing? And you can see here that open infrastructure summit, this idea of possibly changing the open stack summit to open infrastructure summit actually is almost double in terms of how appealing it is. You're bringing in other people. I would know, and this is with a fairly crazy response. So I wanted to, I trouble triple check the data, 56% of Chinese respondents say they'd be interested in open infrastructure summit to just 70% open stack summit. And remember that China is one of our biggest drivers with their fully open stack. So, you're not losing our core, our base in China. In fact, I think this might bring more people to the table. And if there's a way to kind of marry these two ideas where it's open infrastructure summit brought to you by open stack, that would doubly appeal to the Chinese market. But I did want to describe that because that's a big number, 56% Chinese respondents. That was second, I think, behind, I think it was behind Microsoft, 57%. Obviously, there was inflated numbers across the board. But the fact that open stack summit itself for those Chinese respondents was only 70%, so there's no opportunity here. So, again, this is about signaling. It's about signaling that vision, that articulated vision. And we included this quote on the right, which kind of puts a finer point to what the data shows, which is I think you're in very early days out of the final of an infrastructure. And you have to explain why and what it means. Doing that will have to be throughout the messaging of the summit. That's what an open source investor says. So this is in line, this is to support that. Folks are ready to hear about open infrastructure summit and it's possibly a way to signal kind of this vision that opens that foundation and brings to the table. Moving to the last section here about open source, right? So what is that vision? What underpins the vision of open stack foundation? Well, open source clearly is a North Star that opens stack foundation needs to double down on triple down on. Again, you have one of these giant spreads where 68% say open source mission is important to me versus 30% say it's not important to me. I mean, that's over two to one. Clearly, open source is important. And I think also interesting enough, open source technology is more innovative versus proprietary technology is more again, almost two to one. So open source is a good, it is a good thing to wrap open stack and open stack foundation up with. If you take these same statements and you cut stability by people who think open source technology is more innovative and open source mission is important, you have massive differences in terms of people who like open stack. So this is part of the story. This is part of the brand. You know, here's a folks participant from Seattle that said when you look at the open source community there's options out, there's like 25 different ways, maybe you do one thing, but there's more and more at least every day, right? So there's a lot out there in the open source community and people think it's important and that it's innovative. Again, and this is across regions, across worlds. Sometimes, and I would put out there if it's like different regions so differently, I would definitely, you know, choice it, but this was uniform across. You're crossing different roles. We also, you know, okay, so open source is important, open source is innovative, but it's useful, again, to meet people where they are by talking about why, you know, what are the benefits and what are the challenges? We have to solve the challenges, maybe through projects, maybe through IOPSI engagement with, you know, end users. And we have to, you know, remind folks and always emphasize the benefits. Here you see two things. One, flexibility is the top benefit and security. I think security always tops both. This is one of the fun things about being a researcher in this field is you can always rely on security being your top three, both in topics and ideas for any types of questions because it's just such an existential threat. But flexibility pops. So that's something that's useful to always have in our head. The other thing here that comes out as kind of the second tier of benefits is just easy to use and most innovative. So that's kind of the positive brand situation. I do want to further the positive motivation behind open source. I do want to flag here, avoiding vendor lock-in is a little lower than we were anticipating at 16%. I think this has a little bit to do with the question design. Benefit is using open source technology in production. It's not just about open source as a concept which people say open source is free or open source is, you know, avoiding vendor lock-in but using it in production I think is more technical. We want to be more technical in this survey than just kind of more broad based. So that would be my hypothesis for why vendor lock-in kind of is a little bit lower down than that. In terms of drawbacks, this inconsistency is standard. So if we saw before that open source and ideal role of an open source foundation is to set standards, we see why because when people look at the drawbacks of open source, its inconsistency of standards is a top concern. Again, you know, the other concerns that came through is if you add up those two integration questions that also would elevate that to a top concern, 29%. It will be an integration with environment and this will be integration with other source, open source technology. You know, again, when we ask, you know, we ask that they even care about which is more secure, 61% say proprietary technology is more secure compared to 37% say open source. So that's just another data point for why the security issue is at the top. But, you know, again, if we think that open sources are North Star, then like it's worth, you know, always emphasizing the benefits and why it's valuable, why it's useful, why this is the right, this is the future and this would deliver the best experience to users and also speak and try to switch any concerns. You know, we also asked, and again, we have really big splits, you know, saying 66.31 is similar to two to one split, which is, you know, why, what do open source technology do relate to my business? You know, 66%, two thirds say it allows me to focus on building pieces of matter by company versus it requires too much maintenance and causes more problems than it solves. So again, you know, it's seen as something that can unblock value. It's increasing productivity, it's adding value. And, you know, the fact is, we also asked about whether open source solutions integrate easily with the current environment and 57%, so it's slightly smaller, but still majority say that they integrate easily, but when you look at intensity, almost three quarters of that 57% were like, it's somewhat easily, not strongly easily. So this again is an area we saw before in the previous slide, that a concern is this integration piece. And, you know, when you ask about integration, people feel like, yeah, it is really easily, but it's not like I feel strongly with someone, it's somewhat easy. So I think that's another data point to why they're looking towards new projects to help, you know, basically create better solutions for them. Now, you know, I wanna focus the next slide here on, you know, what exactly, when we talk about open source, what exactly are companies doing with open source? You can see here on the left side, you know, the approximate percentage of companies applications without using open source, it's a fairly large spread. Not a, you know, most of the people are doing 50% or less of their applications without using open source technology. We know that people think it's important. We know that people think it's innovative. So there's still room to grow here and move those percentages up. It's right now about 50-50. People who develop above or below 50% of their applications using open source technology. We also asked about their contribution. About 75% say that they contribute to open source projects, only 17% say entire projects. A plurality is just code. And then, you know, a quarter say they contribute comments or questions and forums. And that's, we assume forums like Stack Overflow and whatnot. And then, you know, we also asked, okay, is this increasing in importance or not? And that's just unambiguous. 81% say it's increasing. It will increase in importance in that company. 27% much more important in the next few years and a majority say it's more important. So this is unambiguous here. That people are trying to contribute, that a very strong majority say it's gonna be more important over the next few years. And that leads me again to that left graph, the left side graph, which is we need to probably anticipate and also encourage people, you know, that shift up. We should see those blue bars kind of moving up the scale because, you know, open source will only become more and more important. You know, again, looking at the breakdowns by region, I wanted to flag the Chinese market. Again, it's very important to open source, or sorry, to open stack. That they, you know, 37% versus 20%. So beyond the margin of error, say that open source tech is gonna be very important and then 55% say open source is somewhat important. So in China and in an area that we know is fundamental to open source, open stacks market, you know, this is even more pronounced. You know, if you add that together, we're over 90%, 92%. This open source is gonna get much or somewhat more important in the future. So I want to end just with some opening that we see from this research. So up until this point, my intention was just to report kind of the facts on the ground to give you all a pulse of the market across geographies, across different roles. The next, the final four slides are intended to kind of, you know, spotlight different openings that we see for you all to make decisions around regarding open stack foundation. So the first one here is, you know, open infrastructure is appealing. It could be useful, but it's not well-defined. And so it needs, you know, I know H2G of opening would be for the open stack foundation to be very deliberate and out front in terms of defining this as a useful tool. So as I said before, this actually came after we asked about the name open source summit and versus open stack summit. We then, you know, later in the survey, gave them a definition of open infrastructure and then asked, obviously, we didn't want to do the definition before because we didn't want to bias those results. We wanted to have that be a clean read as if someone was just seeing advertising, digital advertising or someone heard from their boss about this summit, we wanted that to be a clean read. But then we ended up defining it and seeing, okay, well, this is useful to your workflow. And here you see a very strong majority, you know, over 70% say that, I mean, 2% say that, yes, this would be very useful or somewhat useful. So already we have, you know, what we think is like, this is a compelling idea. We then took just the quarter and said, yes, very useful. These are, you know, what we call like the lowest-hanging groups. And we said, okay, but, you know, what are the following phrases that you used to describe open source? These are people who say, yes, open infrastructure would be very useful to be like workflow. And then we said, okay, well, describe it. You know, which of these phrases describe it? Again, very similar, select one, just like the other one. And you see, okay, open infrastructure built from open source components, that's about, you know, a third. That's good, but then 41%, you know, plurality kind of has a very, you know, confused definition shared. Infrastructure, idea infrastructure, infrastructure based on some contributions of these big companies. Physical infrastructure like ride share, you know, in the focus groups, we heard people talk about the bike ride share. They were actually talking about actual open infrastructure. So there is this, and then that 3% say outdoor, but I'm just trying to believe in China we heard someone say it was an outdoor bathroom, like actual infrastructure that is outdoors. Again, the term needs to be defined. It's compelling when it's given, when we have a definition, but, you know, still even people who say it's compelling need to be taught there's an education component here. You move to the next slide. You know, again, I've showed this slide before, but I want to emphasize it just that point that I made earlier that, you know, about one or two participants who consider adopting OpenStack would definitely consider adopting one of the other projects. But that also means that, you know, about half would not. So again, these new projects has potential to attract new users. And if it's under the common, you know, theme or the cohesive narrative vision of open infrastructure, then maybe that's the way to bring new users into their community. And, you know, this might suggest why the summit isn't opening here strategically to kind of bring those folks in. Because you can say, you know, it's open fact first and foremost, but it has these other projects to make your experience using open infrastructure smoother, easier, and more productive. We also did kind of a market assessment or just about market trends and technology trends that are on the horizon. This is a question we've used in other studies as well. We find it's very predictive. You can see here, private cloud, about 62% say they're currently using it. Another 28% say that they might tend to use them in private cloud is obviously going to be the biggest technology here. I don't want to be tested. But then you see some other types of technologies that have very strong, you know, planning on using numbers. And these are coinciding with, you know, some of the special focus areas that OpenSec Foundation has been thinking about. You know, the top plan to use in the next 12 months is network functions virtualization and edge computing. You know, but, you know, right behind there are containers, CICD, 26% planning in the next year. So we see, you know, these are maybe not currently using, but they're certainly in the pipeline. And it's useful to get out in front of these things and to have an explicit offer around how, when these technologies become integrated into their current workflow, they will, that there's a solution to those. And there's a way to use those technologies that are on the cost, or on the pipeline of these companies by using them in their environments, open source, virtual environments. You move to the last slide, we did, I've been talking a lot about articulating envisions and we did test some vision statements. So at the very end of the survey, this is so it didn't buy us anything else before it, but we did say, okay, we want to end with some statements from the OpenSec Foundation about its mission. And here were the top three we tested, I think. Six, six, maybe even eight. Embarrassing oversight, I should know that. I think we did some six total statements, but these are the top three and we focused on these top three because they were all up over 60% in terms of much and somewhat more favorable. The rest were in the low 15. So a significant, you know, beyond the margin of error difference. And the first one, the first message I want to point out, and all of these are within the margin of error. It's what I want to use to emphasize this was a step change above the other statement. So we want to just focus on these. And they all kind of together tell a story. One is, you know, that OpenSec Foundation's, you know, its mission is to increasingly support this open source IT infrastructure, right? It's using, it's built by the community. It's following use cases, wherever they are. It's a single cloud, multi-cloud enterprise. But like its goal is to ensure that IT infrastructure is more and more open source. We know open source is important and this is kind of a nice way to double down on that or tap into that. The second one is about the curation, right? So it's nice when you see in a survey multiple data points that support a similar conclusion. And so our second strongest message was, you know, that Open Source Foundation, its aim is to help people who build open source, work together to build solutions for any modern stack, taking time to curate a project they trust. So again, you're seeing that concept come through and the statement here earlier in the presentation suggests the same. And last, it's about, the last, the third strongest message was about filling the gaps. And here you see tapping into some of the special focus areas, things that people know are coming down the pipeline from container architecture as computing CITD data center infrastructure. You know, it's about filling the gaps in open source infrastructure by advancing solutions and projects to have a better user experience. All these things, I think, could be said in a cohesive way to articulate a vision about why Open Source Foundation was doing what it's doing to both, you know, make the open source experience better for end users, but also specifically around the projects that it has that it's focusing on to fill the gaps and to be highly curated in its selection of those projects. So to conclude, I'll restate kind of the key findings and then, you know, finish with the street openings and open to questions. I'm right around my time. And so we have about 10 minutes to, to the all task questions for OpenStack folks to kind of take their takeaways, their reflections. So our market, you know, our market research shows that OpenStack's reputation, you know, it's powerful, it's flexible, it's, you know, for some mention that it's difficult to use complex, but its capability is on power with the other major players. And the more it's able to publicize itself, the better that capability is. That the ideal for a foundation, that the foundations begin to curate these projects, to provide guidance, to navigate Open Source. Open Source has to be the North Star. We have to double down, we have to wrap up Open Source or OpenStack Foundation around Open Source. And then the three few openings that we see is there's potential here to start with the summit by broadening the foundation's scope to be inclusive to new projects around open infrastructure. You know, that one, that one's five, where you saw 32%, just without even this existing, that third, you know, that was a top, you know, summit they'd be interested in attending. It doesn't even exist. And it's, you know, the 16 percentage points higher than Open Tech Summit. I think that's compelling. I think that is a potential strategic opening that foundations should explore. Second, you know, this idea of articulating the vision. People think that Open Source foundations are good. So they don't, they have a very mental sense of what they actually should be doing. So the more we can articulate and be explicit about that vision, the better. And then lastly, elevating new projects and welcoming new communities into the fold, thinking about that market trends, tech trends slide and thinking about, okay, well, these are coming down the pipeline and, you know, anything that's a new project that can kind of make sure that the experience, once people integrate those into their workflows or technologies and tools into their workflows, the better, because people are looking towards them as what's coming next. And it's important to make sure that the Open Tech experience is inclusive and welcoming, you know, folks who are working on those new, on those areas and wanting to integrate those technologies into their workflow. So with that, I will pause. I'll hand it back to Lauren, Mark, Jonathan, the Open Tech team, and then be here for questions. I hope this is interesting. I hope this was clear. And if anyone has any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them next 10 minutes and then also be available for any followers. Awesome. Well, thanks so much, David and thanks to your team. I know that was a lot to digest at the time that we had. So I did want to just open it up for any questions but also just kind of reactions or thoughts that there's anything that stood out to you as notable or surprising or anything along the line. Hi, this is Annie. I just have a quick question for David. I'm just curious, do you have a breakdown of the participants as, you know, who are the developers and how many of them are the developers? How many of them are business decision makers? Do you have that breakdown? Absolutely. Yeah, I went very quickly to the methodology slide. We had 30% of our... First, everyone in our survey said that they either directly or have material influence on decision making. You know, this is a decision maker survey. So we did screen out. Anyone who said that they have only indirect influence they don't influence at all. So we did try to have that as a screen. Second, and I didn't mention this, we always, you know, we've been doing this for five years now. We've learned some things and we have some kind of tech knowledge-based screens. So again, make sure that we're not letting in folks like myself or my partner who technically, you know, we know about this thing. So we don't know enough to qualify for this survey. So, you know, you're terminated if you kind of, we have a couple of traps where do you answer like, yes, I know about this term, but it's a term that doesn't exist. We use green two as a service, which is not a real thing. But if people who select that is something they know that they're familiar with, they kicked out of our survey because they're most likely lying. So we have a couple of knowledge screens. So that gives you a sense of kind of like the quality system, which I think is important. You know, these are the same panels that Gardner uses, that Forestry uses, but we want to have an enhanced screening mechanism so that we can make sure that these are like actual decision makers who are actually engaged with the tech. With respect to the role, 30% were office and architects, 20% were devs and dev outs, 25% were IT managers, and 25% were CIO, CTO, and line of business. So we, you know, we set them quotas, try to have roughly a quarter to about 30% of the sample be broken down by those for bigger buckets of IT decision makers. Is that, does that answer your question? Yeah, sounds good. Thank you. So you mentioned a bit about how you select these folks. Just, I guess further back, how do you find them to begin with? I'm a little curious about that. Absolutely. And I probably should have said a little more time, methodology sounds like, so apologies for that. We use the US, and I think now globally, the largest panel provider out there online. Is it an online survey? The online panel that we use, that's recently merged the two largest panels, so that's why I think it's actually not the largest global panel provider. It's the same panel provider that Gartner uses, that Forrester uses. These are folks who participate in several types of studies. And we, and they have data on these people. So we basically are targeting IT professionals, and then we have our hand screening to make sure that they are knowledgeable, that they're decision makers, and that they're not just in the industry, but that they are. And again, I should mention, this is not just IT industry folks. This is anyone who says that they're involved in IT in their day-to-day work. So this is broad-based. It's finished in-service, manufacturing. It's anyone who's dealing with IT. At this point, it's not enough to just talk to IT professionals in the IT industry, because every company has a matching number. So we try to be broad-based in that thing as well. Well, and the follow-up question is, are the survey takers compensated in any way? So by participating in a panel, I think you're on credit. I don't know if anyone's kind of remembers back in the early thousands like E-rewards. So you earn credits by participating in a number of panels. It's not like we're sending out checks to every single one of these seven or eight but they get, by participating in a panel, they earn credits so they can exchange those credits for different things. So they're signed up to be part of the panel. The more active of panelists they are, they get credits. But it is not transactional. They don't know who we are. It's double-blind. And again, we try to do other tracks as well. So you have folks who are just on here and just clicking like straightlining through a survey to get done as fast as possible so that they can gain more and more credits. We do a speeder trap where anyone who is, within two standard deviations of the average amount of time taken, these are automatically kicked out. We don't even look at their data. We just assume that those people are cheating. And then we also have some traps throughout the survey, like I mentioned, we ask them to like, how well do you know this thing which is actually not a real thing and then we terminate them because we know that they are not actually reading the questions. So we wanna keep a very high quality. I think he said this. I just need to clarify. The OpenSec Foundation doesn't pay these people directly to answer an OpenSec survey. It's more like a- No, they have no idea. So that's also why we structured the survey so that all the OpenSec questions are at the very end. And in fact, we do some masking in our question text where we say like, this survey is a survey broadcast survey all across the world. In every survey, there's focus on one company and one foundation. And then it kind of has like that space space. In this survey, and then we have like in big bold letters as if it was just like plopped in, like a randomized. In this survey, we're focusing on OpenSec Foundation. So we do some masking as well. And we put those specific OpenSec Foundation questions all towards the back after the market trend data, after ideal foundation data, after the capability, which as you saw has a bunch of different questions. So it would be influence. So they don't know, they just know they're taking a panel survey. But they don't know even clear past name. It's double-blind and that's been as well. And then at the end, they just assume that they got randomly corrected OpenSec as their follow-up speed tag questions. We try to do these things to make this as unbiased as possible. Obviously, we do as much as we can around that time. At the end of the survey, are there in-clins that they have like, huh, I wonder if OpenSec is part of our team. So they may be, but we do as much as we possibly can to make them not think that. One final question. That all sounds great. One final question is, are people allowed to go back in the survey once they kind of reach the end and change their answers? That's a great question and they are not allowed to go back. Thank you. And in fact, if they don't want to, if they want to go back and they try to go back, then they actually, they just aren't even complete. And we call them like just like a log off because we don't want to change their minds. Good, thank you. Prakash here. I have a question. Just wanted to find out if there a possibility of correlating between the leading projects like Zoo, Starling X, Kata, and Airship, which you mentioned. That if we can correlate that with the, what do you call the, how people are using in future, next year. Certain areas. So is there any? Sure. That line where I said the market trends, like the technology coming down the pipe and then correlating that with people who think it's more favorable that they're, yes, absolutely. That it's interesting. That would be an interesting cut and we'd be happy to provide that to you. I think I would be, I probably can't do that in two minutes. I wanna think about it and I need to like run across tabulations. But that's something we can provide for you, sure. That's an interesting question. Yeah, we would like to have that to know whether the projects that are there in the pipeline, are they making sense for the future? What trends are indicating? I think it makes total sense to do that. Yeah, so I think we're at the end of our time just about here. I wanted to make sure that we got everyone's questions in and just talked about next steps. Are there any other last questions before we talk about next steps? I do have a one more question. I don't know if we can answer it here. But my question is, which I did not really get from this presentation is, obviously OpenStack brand is very good. It's very important. But if we are going with the open infrastructure route, is that gonna create an impact on the OpenStack brand? Is it gonna be a negative impact or positive impact? I mean, I don't know if OpenStack folks you wanna mention, I would like to just be on the side of the survey. We did test Open Infrastructure Summit and again, I wanna point out that our market, right? China really has a strong peer-review towards OpenStack itself and technology, yet they were incredibly interested in Open Infra Summit. It suggests to me like it's only something that is additive based on the data. We also, again, you look at the same question that Perkesh asked about the different projects that you have people who would definitely consider OpenStack but aren't considering the other projects and vice versa. People are considering other projects and not OpenStack so it feels like we can bring those people in. So I don't, you know, we didn't see any blowback necessarily. I think, David, I can jump in and just clarify because I think we're possibly conflating a couple of different potential options that are on the table. One is around the summit itself and I think that the data supports the notion that if we are to rebrand the summit, we actually give us the opportunity to emphasize each of the projects including especially OpenStack as part of the summit. So I think that the data supports the idea that if we change the name of the summit it wouldn't damage the OpenStack brand. I think the second question is more around changing the name of the foundation. I think to me, you know, that's potentially a trickier question and maybe the data's not giving us as clear of a signal on that. So I think that it's important to kind of, you know, separate those two things and most of what we've been talking about in this presentation and around sort of what the data's pointing to is about the summit itself and part of the thinking around that as well, Annie, is that if you look at what the summit is it's actually already bigger than not just OpenStack but actually has for many years extended beyond just the projects hosted at the foundation. So even when you talk about having, you know, Starling X, Cata, Zool and OpenStack at the summit you're still gonna have things that aren't part of the foundation hosted in projects, right? Where there's tons of sessions like Kubernetes and Docker and TensorFlow and on and on. So I think in that sense it wouldn't be, I think, you know, gonna cause any concern around looking like the OpenStack brand is something we're abandoning because it would be very much embedded in how we talk about the Open Infrastructure Summit versus like I said, you know, if we were to actually change the foundation name that potentially is a different, it's a much different scenario in my mind. And just lastly, I'll mention that we, in the past week have just kind of reached out to all of the sponsors of the last two summits and asked informally basically, hey, if we were to change the name of the summit next year in 2019, you know, would you sort of be for against or neutral? And I think every single person we talked to was either in favor, which was the vast majority or sort of neutral. I don't think we got a single company that came back and said, that's a bad idea. So that's just another data point. And we're still getting that feedback coming in, but in terms of the summit side, I think that we can do that in my opinion in a way that doesn't damage or kind of put the OpenStack brand at risk. Great, thank you. Yeah, and I know that we're over time now. Obviously there's a lot of information here and a lot of different ways that we can look at it and that we're going to be applying this. So we'll definitely be sharing more of how we are planning to leave some of these insights into our messaging as we're heading into the Berlin summit and announcements that happen around that, as well as a lot of the content that we're continuing to produce. But we'll definitely be sharing more of this data throughout the rest of the year. And if you have any specific questions or a specific interest around it, please let us know and we'll try to pull together information to help answer those questions. Awesome. Well, thank you all for your time. We really appreciate it. And like I said, if you have any questions, please shoot them over and we will share this recording and the slides as soon as it's available. Thank you everybody. Thank you. And especially a clear path for everything you've done to pull this data together and do all the research. Very, very valuable. Fantastic, and we'll do the follow-ups and any other questions we're happy to be available. Our work does not stop. If you have any questions about the data, we're happy to answer them. Thanks.