Board of Directors nominations are now open. Nominate an Individual Member of the OpenStack Foundation. Nominate
I run the OpenStack Development Infrastructure
I currently work full-time on OpenStack for HP. I lead a team that works on running the Developer Infrastructure systems for the project, as well as teams working on OpenStack Deployment (TripleO) and OpenStack Bare Metal (Ironic). I am past PTL of the OpenStack Infra Program and set up the original project gating infrastructure. I currently sit on the Technical Committee. Previously, I was a core developer on Drizzle and was a Senior Consultant for MySQL, Inc. I've been a Python hacker by choice since 2000, and am currently a member of the Python Software Foundation.
I have a degree in Theatre Directing and went to grad school at CalArts in lighting design. The intersection of fields has led me to start more than one business around developing technology for and related to live performance. I continue to work in the theatre, and over the past year have lit shows in New York, Seattle and Austin.
I'm involved in the following OpenStack projects: Openstack-ci
Monty has been nominated enough times to appear on the election ballot. You can read the answers Monty gave to the election questions below.
My biggest contribution to OpenStack's success is the original implementation of and ongoing work on our project gating infrastructure. That project has grown to be an exciting and vibrant project in its own right, and is also being used by wikimedia, HP, IBM, Mirantis and Canonical, to name a few.
From day one, I've been in a position to care more about the project as a whole than about any of the projects, and I take the holistic view very seriously. Our project is a collection of many projects, and the high level coordination of those is paramount to our continued success.
OpenStack's success it important to me, and to all of us, because the world where a single server is important is long past. The data center is the new computer, and if it's locked up beind single vendor proprietary solutions, then all of the work we've done in the last 20 years on Linux really winds up being for naught. So for me, this is the whole enchilada.
In addition to currently serving on the OpenStack Foundation Board, I am also a company member of a theatre company in Seattle, and I run a not for profit Burning Man camp. In all of them, the work of achieving a goal other than money or profit, where "to maximize shareholder value" is not the primary motivator, has to be balanced with supporting the needs of the people or organizations who are funding the work of the group. The intersection of those competing interests is actually much more akin to the field of political science than it is to the world of business.
Through all of them, and through the work on the OpenStack project itself, developing consensus amongst equal parties is much more important than executing a top-down vision from a dictator, self-appointed or not. I believe that I have gained multi-faceted experience in doing just that.
The power of the OpenStack brand needs to be used to further OpenStack. As OpenStack is a technical meritocracy, I do not think that it's the board's place ot get down and dirty with technical direction - I think the technical committee is doing just fine on that point. The board's role is to position the output of the project in the context of the larger world, and to help find its place in the ecosystem of ecosystems. It's up to the board to ensure that the right balance is struck between the carrot of being associated with the brand and the stick of requirements on participants who want to do so. To broad a policy and the brand becomes meaningless, too narrow, and nobody uses it.
I believe in a broad definition of OpenStack. I believe that projects like Heat, Trove, Ironic and TripleO, whlie possibly not the first things that people thought a cloud needed, are essential to OpenStack being a real solution for people who want to solve real problems.
The world has no idea, though, what OpenStack itself thinks on this point. I believe that the Board needs to grapple with the question for real, and needs to do so without hiding too much behind process.
I think the Board also needs to fully come to terms with and embrace what it means to grapple with that question without having any control on the technical choices that the technical committee.
Finally, I think the board needs to figure out how to get more of the considerable resources our community has at hand focused on the core common elements, such as Infra/CI, QA, Docs, Security and the non-vendor portions of our projects.
Monty has already been nominated by: