 Good. Excuse me, afternoon, everybody. I'm Alex Friedland. I'm the chairman and co-founder of Mirantis. I'm also a director of OpenStack Foundation. One of the things that we do here at Mirantis is we work with a lot of customers who want to learn about OpenStack. So my role is I run community engineering, but also kind of community outreach for Mirantis. And one of the challenges that we're dealing with is how do you bridge the gap between what people's expectations are on who is coming into the OpenStack community and the community itself. So we've been doing this fairly successfully or reasonably successfully in the last several years, but the situation is rapidly changing. And what's happening is OpenStack is really becoming a runaway train. And I don't know the audience here, but for us it's certainly becoming clear that this market is accelerating. We've reached escape velocity and OpenStack has just pretty much won the battle of internal clouds. It will be the fabric that will glue together the data center infrastructure. It's no longer just something that developers play with, because if you look at the history of how even a larger company's adoption was happening, it was happening in a developer-centric way. So developers would have a skunkworks in somewhere, they'll have protection of the business people, and that's how projects would start. So developers will kind of get like it, they will collaborate with the developers in the community, and things will go fine. So once you start moving into mainstream, this is no longer happening. It's like your teenage daughter is running your love note, and it's as naive and happy people coming into the community, which is great, we want that. But what we do to make them successful is a question. So what are the ramifications? So instead of developer-led tactical adoption, we're starting to see strategic adoption. We see that some really strong enterprise grade architects are studying OpenStack and saying, okay, what will it need to be for us to be successful long-term? And there are challenges in some of the implementation architecture, and of course there are commercial adoption plans that people are putting together that depend on whether or not OpenStack can solve certain problems. So the many stakeholders who are now starting to do this in a commercial setting are actually have no experience in the community engineering. They have no idea how to do open source per se, but they need those things sold. So what they do is they do it in the way they're used to, and they reach out to the engineers in the community, and what they get is something like this. If it's an obvious idea, they go, yes, so. And as I said, we like your opinion, but we kind of have our own. And by the way, if you happen to not speak the, you know, the Garrett, the, you know, all the lingo that developers are talking, you're not really somebody who will talk to you anyway. So why are you wasting our time here? And we are seeing this left and right. You know, OpenStack development is governed, you know, by OpenStack developers. And if, you know, those of you who know how governance works, we have all the business issues managed by the foundation, the board of directors, and all the developers, all the development technical issues are managed by a technical committee. Now, technical committee has, you know, distinguished technologies, technologists who are there, and the business folks have no authority over the technical decisions made in the community, which is great because OpenStack is allowed to be a meritocracy, but it means it's very hard to drive agenda that is not something that developers like. And developers, you know, they work on things that they like to work on, and it creates, you know, a quick question. So I'll just share a story with you. We have a very large and respected partner and customer. I'm not gonna name names, but it's a very, very large company with tremendous and deep experience developing cloud platforms, you know, commercial cloud platforms for telco business, you know, five nines, really, really strong. And they, they really made a strong commitment to OpenStack. And their technical guys started to kind of embrace OpenStack and look at this, and they have the big development plans. So their senior level architects came up with some ideas that, you know, the way OpenStack is doing is kind of childish. We'll kind of suggest our own improvements. We went to the community, you know, published a whole bunch of blueprints, went in and started talking to the core developers and projects. And I said, ah, you know, it's great, but, you know, the architecture of Nova doesn't really support it, and the fact that it doesn't belong there needs to be somewhere else. So just like, and the guys, you know, he's used to having, having his way, he started to push to say, well, but, you know, we really know what we're doing. It's like, you don't know how to talk to us. You're not being polite. I'm not gonna talk to you goodbye. And then he says, okay, I'll be polite. You know, what should I do? It doesn't belong to Nova. You know, it should be a meta thing somewhere else. So go talk to these people. He said, well, maybe you can suggest to do it on my behalf. He says, no, no, we're Nova people here. You know, we don't talk to those people. So it's like, don't waste our time. Goodbye. And the whole thing blew up. And, you know, thankfully, you know, they're they're big merantis customers. So we, we called a few people in the community. We kind of quieted everybody down. We had a training session to those guys to explain how the community works. We took some community leaders who said, okay, you know, please be their ambassadors to the community because it's so important to open stack and all this. And now we're handling it, things are happening better. But clearly, it's not a scalable model, where you got to have, you know, CEO of merantis and the chairman of merantis kind of interject because some developers couldn't agree. So there, but it's a real issue that we have to address. So and, you know, this is sort of, you know, a visual way, you know, to kind of, you know, so sometimes you have to be like, you know, a climber. It could be very dangerous because you have very unhappy customer on one end, you know, a very smart developer on the other hand who couldn't care less. And you have to kind of, you know, climb this, this thing. And you know, if you make a mistake, you'll fall down. So, okay. So what we looked at is we said, okay, but what is it? And how does it work in other open source ecosystems? Because, you know, clearly open stack isn't the first. And in other open stack ecosystems, this problem is actually solved by typically the owner of the ecosystem. Because, you know, if you look at examples, I chose cloud stack and al fresco, those are sizable ecosystems. And of course, we all know that cloud stack is an alternative to open stack to build a cloud platform. But if you look at it closely enough, it's really, you know, it's open source and it's Apache and all that, but it's really closely dominated by Citrix. Citrix is the one who originally bought cloud.com. And they're the ones pushing it. And so Citrix makes all the product decisions as to how you drive this ecosystem. And yes, there are a number of developers who kind of go, but if you look at all the key areas of control, they are developed by Citrix engineers using your normal product management process where you have, you know, a backlog is based on what customers want, architecture is centrally managed. And then yes, it's done in open source, you know, as a way to conquer the market, where open source becomes an engine of making it cheaper to sell as opposed to a way to develop. Alfresco is very similar. Linux is a little bit different, but we all know that, you know, Linux, well, first of all, it took tens of years to develop to where it is today, open stack is moving much, much faster. And second, from day one, there was a benevolent dictator in Linux making, you know, many of those hard decisions. And many, many are saying that the success of the Linux ecosystem is, you know, mainly to the large extent as to what, you know, Linux Torvalds has accomplished. So open stack doesn't have, you know, either of these two setups. So that being said, you know, can we do this? Well, so, you know, we have some very dominant players in the ecosystem. But open stack is way too big and too diverse to be controlled by one company. And we're seeing, for example, Red Hat being very, very strong and emerging as a very large player in the ecosystem, you know, number one in contributions and the like. But there are two issues there. One is the mission of open stack is to be able to actually take the diverse technology stacks inside the enterprise and be able to be driven from one control plane. So the users will not accept even a very, you know, a very good dominant player as the dominant player. And that's why the community is so large and diverse because there's so many interests. Open stack is much larger than Linux. Linux is just, you know, one piece of the stack. And open stack already has all of the infrastructure of compute storage and network and is moving up to stack now with services and application components and all that. And there isn't even one company that even if they wanted to, they would have capability to innovate so fast to have competency in all this. So open stack is just way too, you know, large diverse and configurable to be able to do this open stack has unique use cases to a whole number of industries, right? So, you know, service providers kind of started this whole move. You know, then we're seeing, you know, telecoms and then, you know, the network function virtualization plays happening. Then the Web 2.0 folks were the second wave. Now we're seeing classical IT enterprise, you know, enterprise IT folks are starting to use open stack. Now the use cases go into Dev and production and, you know, hybrid clouds. So there's just no way something that diverse could be centrally managed. So we have to find a way to, you know, to solve this problem without a vendor or benevolent dictator. Now there is another kind of challenge that we as a community are facing and it's an existential problem for open stack because open stack came out of an economic need to level the playing field where computing as a resource needs to be delivered at a price point, at that scale, at a price point that's compatible to what these guys are doing. So, but, you know, price point of being where is easier, but if you look at people like, you know, Amazon Web Services and Google and, you know, eventually Microsoft, you know, but the Google and Amazon are the first examples. They've been able, they've showed the world that can, they can, they can deliver. They can, internally they can deploy technology, computing technology at a price point that's orders, orders of magnitude less than what traditional IT enterprises are doing. Then, of course, the open source, many of those technologies made them available, you know, to the world, but if they, if these, you know, these companies, Google and, and Facebooks and the like, if they would have consumed technology at the same price point that Citibank is consuming technology today or American Express, then, and Mark Andreis instead of first I'm just repeating his words, then there wouldn't be a Google because the price that they would pay to the vendors like HP and Oracle and, and, and, and others would be larger than the revenues that Google can make. So, you know, so Google had to innovate, you know, by orders of magnitude and being able to consume complex technology, you know, computing services at a very different price point. And now people like Google and people like Amazon are making it available to the outside world and creating this very, very important resource called general computing, right? Available at a whole different price point and easier to consume. Now, what's happening is the enterprises look at this and they kind of see this, you know, if you look at this problem holistically, you kind of understand that this resource is extremely strategic. And if you are a large company, for example, in banking or in trading, it's how you trade and, you know, the details and the intricacies of that becomes a differentiation against your competitor. So the very resource you use to trade all belongs to Amazon or Google. Then you have about as much power and control over it as we as consumers have against our public utilities, right? So we have none because they have it all. We plug in the wall. They tell us how much it's going to cost. Hopefully they'll regulate it. If there's an outage, we can complain but nothing happens. Now, if you're a large enterprise, you can't afford that kind of control for that strategic resource. So there has to be an alternative to this that has powerful and strong and that's what OpenStack is proposing to become. But in order for this to work, we have to be able to use OpenStack to deliver the computing resource at the same price point as Amazon and Google will be available to do. And that's the challenge. So if, and for that, the technology itself needs to become competitive to these guys. And that's a tall order. And so we as a community have to be able to deliver it at the same quality. And there's plenty of people who are helping. And that's what, especially now in the mainstream, that's the large companies are willing to put their resources in there. It's just can we take it? So, and today, if you look at the community, there is no one holistic view of OpenStack. The engineering community, you know, everybody works on their individual projects. They know what this is. They don't understand what the impact of this will be to other projects. And so there needs to be ways that community can self-organize and actually help, you know, to drive it as a number of resources goes up. So up until now, the hard decisions on how this works have been driven by vendors. So, you know, Mirantis did their share and Red Hat did and HP did and IBM did, you know, World Top contributors. But as we become hugely larger, this is not enough. So what is necessary for this to work is we need to drive two things. We need to drive neutrality and transparency into OpenStack. And both are very important. Neutrality is essentially what will allow OpenStack to be agnostic to vendor interests and ultimately will allow the customer to have a leverage over vendor interest where they can take one vendor who is more expensive for less innovative and replace them with another without destroying everything that's running on top of the platform. And that's the value of OpenStack. And transparency means that everybody can see what's happening in the community, who is doing what, and you can make decisions based on hard data. And so, I think this is the only way we can self-organize community. And we at Mirantis actually have been doing this for quite a while and I'll give you a couple of things. Now, how many of you know what Stackalytics is? Okay, about half. So we started Stackalytics about a year ago as a way to show transparency into community contributions and we've expanded it greatly since. And it looks like the foundation is now starting to work closer and probably Stackalytics may end up being part of storyboard or something like this. But it's become kind of a default tool that both technologists are using to see who is doing what in the community. The press, the business folks to kind of understand what companies are doing separately, who are the people, what exactly they're working in and drill down to the actual work that's happening. So we did it originally to kind of drive our own contribution statistics but then it became a tool for everybody. And we very specifically, we made sure that it's a very easy to consume, a very intuitive tool because you wanna make sure that people who don't understand the intricacies and details of how Gary works and how GitHub works and all those things can still get the relevant information. So that's like a first iteration is to kind of show who is doing what. But if you look at Stackalytics and I'll drive a little demo to kind of show where we're taking it, there are other things that you can look at above and beyond who are the companies and who are the people who contribute. Now, I'll give you another example of transparency that will allow community to self-organize. And this is a project rally that, again, Mirante started but now there is a fairly significant community that's built around it. Even though rally is technically not yet been even applied for incubation, it's already one of the more active projects on Stackforge, which is kind of the greater open stack innovation sandbox. So originally, our developers noticed that some of the algorithms in open stack were such that as you start scaling the number of VMs and different use cases, it will actually not scale very well. And they tried to go to different projects in the community and suggested some of the architectural ideas not really work well and it was difficult to prove because for the use cases and the interests of that particular clump or snowflake or area of this particular project, people didn't see the holistic picture of the whole thing. And so where you could address it locally, they wouldn't understand how their change would affect another piece in a different part of open stack. And so what one of our developers, Boris Pavlovich decided to do is to build a tool that would give you an easy way to take open stack and just profile it. And not only to profile it, but to define a use case across it, deploy it, do whatever you need and then the profiler will show you exactly what is happening and where the bottleneck is and will give you a report similar to this one where anybody can understand what's happening and they can kind of see if it's this way or this way and it immediately becomes problematic. And so people commercially realize that if they're using open stack, they need to have a profiler to kind of understand this is a precursor to building an SLA but something else happened that is very important and that's why I decided to bring it to a community discussion. Lots of people said it's a good idea to take rally as a tool and embed it into the holistic testing that we're doing across all of open stack driven by Tempest which is the QA engine so that the gates for each change will include the effects we do on all of open stack as measured by rally. So you then suddenly have not only you have the uniform information that you can use and if the community agrees it's a standard, I can go and say if you make this change here's a rally benchmark that will actually be a problem right so suddenly a person here will be paying attention to it because it will become part of data he couldn't dispute. We also make it a standard acceptance criteria which says hey not only you do this every time we test we run this and it's a gate and if it fails you can go in. So you automate it and you scale across the whole thing. So it's a good example of how you drive in this particular case performance, how you drive performance into very diverse community and again the two drivers there is transparency right and consistency of data. So we create transparency, we educate the community and community will self-organize around that. And so I think that this is in general a way a community of this size can drive improvement consistently and there is no other way, there is no prescriptive way it has to be through transparency. So something similar and I'll do a small demo here and I'll move, let's see, how do I do that? Oh it switched, so let's see, okay. So this is a new version of Stack Analytics that just came in and I'll show you how this transparency is also driving something on the marketing side which is important. So everyone have seen this which is the code contribution and just for those who haven't used it it's stackalytics.com. I believe something similar will soon be coming. You'll be able to see it from the foundation dashboard but the idea here is you can choose your release, your project type, modules within the company and just do filtering as to who does what and specifically in June or today we can see this is commits and the other choices you see here could be, if it ever wakes up, you can see reviews and you can see, well are we online here? Yeah we are. So commits, completed blueprints, drafted blueprints, emails, lines of code and reviews and by the way all of this is taking life from the actual life systems where all this work is happening so again there is no agenda here, it just takes the information that's available and presents it in a way that is easier to consume so it just provides transparency and you can see sort of who the, by commits, who the largest committers or if you wanna look at reviewers, who the largest reviewers and then specifically by project, by company and you can drill down and do whatever you need to do. So we decided and that was an initiative that was run by the foundation and the technical community together. We said that one of the important drivers for adoption of OpenStack is we need to have as many vendors who know what OpenStack is to actually embrace OpenStack because ultimately OpenStack would be useless unless you can actually have storage vendors and compute and network and others, embrace it, create drivers, support them, make sure they work well. Now if you are an enterprise customer, if you are, I don't know, Wells Fargo Bank who did a keynote here, how do you decide which vendor to use? Well at first what you do is you do it in a prescriptive way, you meet with every vendor, your big case, everybody runs to you and you kinda do the POCs with all of them when you choose something. That the reason you get OpenStack to begin with is that if one vendor is actually falling behind, you have a chance to change it with a different vendor and nothing that runs on top of OpenStack will notice. So that's why OpenStack is interesting. Now reality today is not quite there but that's the nirvana that we all want. Ultimately that's what's happening in Amazon, right? You run on top of Amazon, you don't know what's happening underneath and so if Amazon figures out that there is a provider who can do the same thing and wants seventh the price, they will start buying that storage vendor for example and we the users will never know, right? So OpenStack kinda has the same promise. So how would Wells Fargo in this particular example decide what vendor is there? You can't run POCs on all of them, that will eventually be too hard to do. So one of the ways to do it is we create a marketplace for all the vendors and we make it self-service. And this is something that traditionally before Open Source has been done by large vendors. So if you're VMware, you certify your vendors and you tell them who the certified vendors are and typically it's also a way to lock people in because your channels allow you only certain subset of vendors and then others cannot penetrate so you can charge a premium price. Here, that's not the case at all and we saw a brilliant example. I've always been using this example in public talks a few days ago, there's a price tag now for this. SEF, how many of you know SEF or heard of SEF? Everybody, well, if you're in OpenStack, you kinda know that SEF has become a default choice for storage. But SEF, how did SEF come about? They come about as a spin out from Dreamhost and they just decided that they're gonna use OpenStack as their use case. Now, previously, if OpenStack weren't around, if you build a storage startup and you have a great innovative idea, how do you go about this? Well, you build this idea, then you go and you hire five or six strong enterprise sales guys with a price tag of $300,000 a year plus at Quora because otherwise they wouldn't come and then you spend two years and probably $30 million in trying to establish five serious use cases with a bunch of enterprises proving that technology works. Once you've done that, then people like EMC will kinda start noticing you and say, well, maybe we should consider because enough customers asked for it so VMware is noticing it and then EMC is looking at this and what happens is five years later, if you survive so long, then EMC will buy you for some money, puts you into a VMware channel, by the way, they rack at the price, but then X and you're done, that's innovation. Take SEF and OpenStack. They came up with something very, very young, very good and they said, we're gonna make OpenStack the driver to market, the single channel to market. So they just focused on this, they understood all the use cases, they went out, wrote great drivers, found people in the community who wanted to do those use cases, integrated with everybody with Mirantis at first in services, then Mirantis OpenStack, then a bunch of other people and before we knew it, there was like 50 use cases, everybody loves it, it's cheap, it's great, it works well. Now Red Hat had to work with it even though they had Gluster, right? And the whole amount of money they spent was what, I think they raised less than $15 million, most of it was spent on engineering to actually innovate the product and maybe $1 million on the marketing side. And lo and behold, they're already de facto standard, everybody's working with that, they're integrated into VMware, Red Hat needs to work with them too, before you know it, Red Hat decides to buy at 175 million in like 18 months of work. So, and by the way, for all the customers, it's a great story because they've been able to use Ceph where the alternatives weren't available otherwise and OpenStack kind of made it possible, right? So now, there are many conversations about what's gonna happen now that Red Hat purchased Ceph, will Ceph be as popular because one of the attractiveness of it was then diagnostic and the like, but my answer to this is very simple, we'll need to know because what's happening is infrastructure space is incredibly large and there's incredible amount of innovation that can happen there, so rather than guessing what's gonna happen, we just open it up and create a marketplace for vendors to compete. And so we created the vendor log thing which is essentially a way to transparently see who works well with OpenStack and how. And so we've been working there, like I said, with the foundation and with the community. And what we did is the foundation agreed to create a new trademark that's called OpenStack Compatible, which is something that if you want to sell to OpenStack customers, being certified by the foundation of OpenStack Compatible, if you were a vendor that provides components to OpenStack, it's a good thing, right? It's something that will give your customers comfort that you know what you're doing. So you can get this logo and then we said, how do you do this? And there's a certain number of rules that says A, you have a driver, a component upstream and all that, but most importantly, you can show that you are consistently over time passing all the standard tests in your reference architecture that works on top of OpenStack. So there is a way to build CI, CD environment that integrates with OpenStack. We, actually some of our Mirantis architects, Jay Pipes was actually working on this. So he published a number of white papers explaining how you do it. Then we marketed it outside and a whole bunch of vendors actually integrated in that. And then you plug yourself in here and every day that the builds are being run, you have an environment that you run also with them when you report the results upstream. And as a result now, when you have a stable build, you have your vendors who are working with OpenStack. We have data that says my build passed, my build failed and so on and so forth. I can show it actually in a stack-a-lytics like or in this case stack-a-lytics thing and then what will float into the foundation marketplace. So there's total transparency and there is no self-service way for customers, I mean for vendors to go in and certify themselves. And this is pretty much how it's done. And you can see stack-a-lytics is gonna give you a simple interface. You can choose project, sender for storage and others, neutron for networking or no one networking would have you. Then vendor, driver, and then trunk and whether or not a CI tested. And if it's CI tested, you can just say, well, who are the ones who are passing the tests? And for sender, and here you go, you know, sheepdog volume driver. So whoever that is, you can click and see who those people are. We have some very slow internet for some reason, I don't know what's happening. But yeah, so there's a description and it kinda tells you who those are and who the people are and so on and so forth. And if you wanna look at other people, so Arista, they have a driver for all these and it's actually passing. And there should be, there should be also, let me see if that's not published here. But there is also the thing here that says maintainer and there are actually people and I'm not sure why it's not showing here, but it actually shows you who are the people maintaining the driver so if you have a question, you know where to go in the community. But if you are a customer and you're thinking, about who to use, you can just go to this thing, find all the people with a green check mark and say, these are the people I wanna talk to first. And it creates a huge incentive for the vendors and the people who are innovating to just come and say, oh, if you wanna be noticed, we just need to do two things. One, write a good thing, innovate the hell out of it, get in here, make sure we're visible, pass all the tests and then create four or five use cases with people in the community and we can be an other self. Which is a tremendous, you know, that is the value of Arista. So, and you know the transparency mechanism is the one that will actually drive the community to innovate. So, let's go back to the presentation if we can and we can. So, and so where do we go from here? So, there are a couple of things that are happening in the, you know, in the community. So first of all, Board of Directors is running a few initiatives to get the users closer to the OpenStack, right? So first of all, there is OpenStack user groups and there is, you know, the whole movement is led by Tim Bell and in there, there is a big section for operators. We're trying to understand the use cases the operators are using and then recently in the last meeting, we agreed that we need to have a much more formal group that talks about users, you know, the actual users, you know, could be developers for building dev environments or something who are customers of the operators, right? And so we're now starting a work group under the user group that Chris came from Nebula and myself are gonna be spearheading. And then of course, there's an enterprise user group now which is Intel is starting, which is led by the Intel director, Emod. So we're learning what use cases are really important for customers and what's good is that the foundation is starting to actually put resources into that, you know. Tom Fiefeld has actually been doing some work on the foundation side. And also we're starting to have joint sessions between the board of directors and the technical committee. And if you look at how we're organized, you will notice that there is maybe two or three people who are on both but then the board of directors is very, very business, you know, they're all the business people and lawyers and all that, they're making sure that our trademarks are right. But we can drive the use cases. We have the people who are interested in that. But how do you then translate that into the technical guys who are sitting there and saying, well, you know, it's just simple. Just give me a blueprint and Garrett, or say plus one and then we'll talk. So there needs to be a better mechanism. And one of the discussions we've been having is what about trying to introduce an idea of product management in the community? It's a new function, it's never been done before and people are ambivalent about it because one thing about product management, if you work for a commercial company and you're a developer, you know that you wanna do one thing and then some business guy is driving you to do something different. It's a cause for creative tension. But without product management and product marketing, you wouldn't have an alignment between what customers want and what developers wanna work on. So that function needs to be somehow represented. But if we can actually institute it on the community, I don't know. So one of the ways to do this is to actually have this function, right? What is this function? To interact with non-technical open stack users and understand the use cases, then collect and prioritize requirements and then publish, translate them into the language that developers will understand, which are blueprints that the developers can start working on. And then as you do that, you will be able to attract people who don't speak open stack-ish, whatever that language is, but they can tell you what is it that they need and that will get translated into a blueprint requirement. And then you use Stakelytics Engine to provide the marketplace for features, which means that if this is something that's important, the greater community of non-technical Stakelytics users can say plus one to this particular blueprint, that blueprint will float on top. And again, if you look at the way Stakelytics works, going back into code contribution, I can actually go and look at drafted blueprints. And it will show me who the people who did the blueprints are. So there is data on blueprints already. So why not go and say, okay, here are all the blueprints, review the blueprints for networking this and that, and then if you think, here's a description of it, and if you like it, say plus one, and it can go to everybody. And then suddenly you will see that there are some blueprints that nobody cares about, and there are some that are really in demand, those will float on top and developers, it's a popular one, I better go work on it, because then I'll be famous. And that will create, again, an alignment. But we need to have this function where those blueprints can be developed by people who don't speak OpenStack-ish. And so that's kind of where we are today. And I think this is the next frontier. If we solve that, OpenStack can actually make a much stronger leap into the mainstream and continue to be innovative ecosystem. So this is all I had to share, but hopefully ideas and questions, because ultimately it's all about the community. So anybody who wants to participate, any questions, please. Well, in the other communities that I mentioned, if it's something that's managed by a vendor, like CloudStack or whatever, then the vendor will do it. If it's something that is managed with a benevolent dictator, he will decide both on the architecture and the features. And then we've never had anything so large. This is, I mean, we're innovating here every day. This OpenStack, just I wanna put things into perspective. OpenStack now is a larger foundation and larger community than Linux. Linux took 25 years to get there. OpenStack got there in three. We just reviewed the financials. I think we're gonna have a $12 million budget this year for OpenStack Foundation. I think Linux has more like eight or nine after 25 years and being by far the largest. And Apache Foundation, which is a special foundation, I think it's maybe one eighth of what OpenStack is today. So that has never been done before. Yes? In the session before you in this room, they were speaking about the Kernel versus OpenStack commit statistics. And when the question came up about how they were derived, he said, unless you go to GitHub and write your statistics from there, it's very hard to be transparent. And something like Stakelytic, Olo, all of these things, it's hard to know to be trustworthy in terms of visibility. Who was the speaker? I came in late, I don't know. So we had, it's an interesting discussion. We had many of those discussions. So at first when we introduced Stakelytics, the foundation reacted really, really negatively because they felt that it allows somebody to have an agenda on how we present this data. And the reality of it is the answer is no because what's happening is Stakelytics is a project that sits there on Stackforge and it's written in the same language as OpenStack. So what we, it's actually, we can actually do something here. I'll show you something. So if I go back to Stakelytics and let's see how would I do that? I would do click here. Oh yeah, it's fine. So I can go and I can say, you decided to disappear on me for whatever reason. Come on. So I'll try it again. I'll go instead of OpenStack, I'll say all. And then when I say module, I'll find Stakelytics there. So let's just do it this way. I can't see it. Stakelytics, the last one here. So what you, yeah, this is all mirages yet, but let me go from June to Ice, to Ice House. You'll see a very different picture here when it comes up. So Stakelytics is a project that's no different from Neutron or anything else. And you see in this particular case, these are blueprints. So again, it's a bad view. Let's look at commits. Well, it's doing the same search, I guess. I'm afraid commits. Something is happening. You know, the, yeah. The internet is just being very slow. But, so here's commits. So when I do that, you will see that a number of people and companies that actually contributed to Stakelytics is quite large. So what we found out is happening is this, that people who are doing contributions, and you see that Mirantis is still number one because we're driving this project, but you have Rackspace and HP and EasyStack and Comcast and Cisco and a whole bunch of other people. So what's happening there? Well, some people decide that the way we're counting lines and whatever, because we're taking it from GitHub, but maybe some of the algorithms can be changed. They're tweaking it, right? And it's being reviewed and we're taking the same. But some people are saying, well, there's actually an exception. We did this big thing. The way you're counting this is incorrect. And they're coming in and they're fixing mistakes. The community is starting to self-govern. And again, we're back to transparency. And by the way, what's happening? We, as somebody who drives this project, if we do something that is by anybody considered, I'll give you an example. Sahara, which is one of the projects that we ran, graduated from incubation into mainstream. It became an integrated project. So as that happened, it became integrated in Juneau. But unfortunately, the way Stack Analytics was written, it's the day the decision was made, decided when it's going into Stack Analytics. So suddenly what happened is our Merantis' contributions because of Sahara in Ice House went up. The next day, we got a call from VMware, then Wendland, email, I said, guys, it's not even our number four, we should be number four, integrated. And by the way, since you guys do Stack Analytics, the last thing you want is for somebody to think that you're manipulating data because you have control over it. So you better fix it and you better believe it that people stayed overnight and we fixed it. Because the last thing we want is our credibility being tarnished because we're manipulating because there's transparency, right? Anybody can do, anybody can see it. Anyone can have an opinion on it. And if we start to be non-transparent, we will lose credibility and that's not good. It's all about being respected in the community and being trusted in the community. So the argument that you can only go and GitHub, yes. But we also go to GitHub. But how we interpret this data, for example, if you do a big renaming of everything, like Neutron. Neutron was called Quantum before and somebody went and renamed it. And suddenly, Mark McLean did a dream host became the largest contributor to OpenStack. So clearly that heuristic doesn't work so we had to say, we had to do an exception. So we kind of changed it to zero and Mark called me and said that's unfair because there's a lot of work I had to do that actually was beyond renaming. So we kind of said, what is it? And for this particular thing, we decided the right number is 5,000 lines. So he agreed, we agreed, and that's a special case, right? And the stack analytics, you can do it. And GitHub, you can't because GitHub actually looks at the number of lines and then what? So this is a much better mechanism because it's community governed. And people will make sure you're fair. So any more questions? Yes? One more. Yeah, please. If you go to, instead of the first drop down, Icehouse or just do all? Icehouse all? No, yeah, instead of wait. Yes, we are not, well this is Icehouse and this is all. So by the way, so this is just for people's information. So OpenStack, it has various parts of OpenStack that we can measure, right? So there is OpenStack itself. You can have integrated and cubated projects where tracking documentation and infra separately, right? And so you can kind of see all of that. And many people just look at integrated because those are the old core projects, right? And then, but then there isn't a number of them like Trove and others, which are part of OpenStack and of course Infra itself. So we default to OpenStack as the number one thing. But then there's also StackForge and what StackForge is, it's where you put projects for general innovation for the OpenStack ecosystem. So StackForge, if you wanna do a new project that will be a candidate or just want to something for the community to be aware of, you put it in StackForge. And so we trace things on StackForge, which is like the larger innovation sandbox that people have. And so all the new projects that are being offered, they go on StackForge and then they also go on the mailing list and people start discussing them. So that's my question. Isn't integrated the really shipping versus all the clients? That's not true. There are a lot of people who are shipping Trove, for example, which is not integrated yet. So there's a number of kind of large, Infra. Infra is very important because that's what actually makes sure that OpenStack is stable, right? And there's a lot of people who are contributing there, like Tempest, for example, right? So yes, for shipping integrated is more important, but for who contributes to greater OpenStack, Monty Taylor, who runs Infra, probably contributes no less than Russell Bryant, who used to run Nova. So that's why we kind of say OpenStack is the main one because this is not about what shipping, that's about who contributes most in OpenStack. And if we just did this, Monty Taylor will be off this picture. It's totally unfair. Well, any suggestions? I mean, what is your guys' experience? How do you drive change in OpenStack? Any thoughts? There are no thoughts from the seats, if you guys? Yes? So there's three markets, right? Service provider, they're taking salad, dessert, you know, starter wine. They'll take what they want from the menu. OpenStack is very configurable, right? So you should be able to, and OpenStack actually has a thin layer of APIs on top of the actual functionality. So you don't provide the actual functionality usually. And the use cases and what to integrate with is determined by OpenStack. And we have service providers and others. They have different use cases and we need to make sure that OpenStack can get those use cases operationalized. So today there's one OpenStack. Now, will there ever be OpenStack, you know, will it split and it'll be OpenStack for operators and OpenStack for enterprises? Hopefully not, but who knows? But that's why we have the work groups for operators because we need to make sure we know exactly what these guys are wanting. We're starting a work group for enterprises because their needs are a little bit different. And but I think the core need for IIS is the same. So I think we can serve it like VMware, for example. They have one set of products and they can apply it for everybody. It's just the pricing and the features may be different, but the engine is the same. You market it differently too, but the product can stay the same. We just need to make sure we address all markets and we understand what they want. Okay, I'm being told that I'm out of time, but yeah, so there's my email in this presentation. So if anybody has ideas and thoughts on how to do it better, we're totally looking for it. And if anybody wants to volunteer to become a program manager function in the community, we would welcome that too. And thank you very much for your kind attention.