I guess I’ll post mine first and everyone can learn from my mistakes 
Alignment Statement
I have two main motivating factors that I believe keep my actions in alignment with the GMC charter. The first is financial. $RPL is my single biggest holding in any financial account, and represents a significant portion of my net worth. As many have documented elsewhere, the success of $RPL as an investment is directly tied to the success in growing RP as a protocol. Grants, bounties, and retrospective awards are a key part of trying to marshal that growth. The second is philosophical. The future of blockchain-based use cases is wide open. Whatever dApps the world ends up developing, I would very much like to see them living in the Ethereum ecosystem. Rocket Pool plays a key role in keeping that ecosystem decentralized and permissionless, and I would like to do what I can to see both RP and Ethereum as a whole continue to grow.
Conflict Statement
I cannot think of any conflicts I would have with the GMC charter, or with the protocol as a whole. The only other cryptocurrency I am invested in is $ETH, and I do occasionally invest in (and play) various blockchain-based video games. All of my crypto-related non-investment activity is in the RP Discord or RP ecosystem.
Identity Statement
When I first started joining crypto Discords I somewhat accidentally doxxed myself by using my very identifying ENS in my username and on Twitter. As such, I’ve just embraced that and have remained fully doxxed since. My name is Danny Fuerstman and I am a 41-year old political science professor living on the Gulf Coast of Florida (please don’t wrench me). A few months ago I had an RP Twitter thread (@ nmorlock42) which I think serves as evidence of the linking of my Discord account with my Twitter identity, which in turn has had both my real life name and my ENS listed on it for some time now.
Contribution Statement
Since I doubt “professional #trading lurker” for the past year counts as a contribution, my major contribution to date has been writing and marshaling RPIP-15, the RPIP that founded the Grants Management Committee, from conception to passage. I had significant help from the community and especially from Valdorff on that one, so I don’t want to claim full credit. But I believe it demonstrates a sincere interest in wanting to see the GMC get off the ground and be successful. I’ve also been involved in governance discussion, both on Discord and on the forum. Finally, I’ve helped various members of the RP community with external relations, including proofreading various documents and helping prep for the Bankless Bullcast.
Additional Information
RPIP-10 allows for additional information, and I believe in general we should be setting a precedent that candidates for these committees also express their thoughts on what they can add to the committee and/or any ideas they believe would guide their work if elected (something like a platform in electoral politics terms).
I very explicitly do not have a technical background so I do not believe my main contribution to the committee would be in my ability to evaluate the technical merits of grants or bounties. But what I do have in spades is experience serving on committees. In my 13 years in academia, I have served on well over 100 committees, both internal to my employer and external within the field. This also includes time on several non-profit boards, including thousands of volunteer hours for one non-profit board in particular (SRMUN, Inc. which stands for Southern Regional Model United Nations).
One thing that you quickly realize from that experience is that for any committee to be successful, there has to be one or more people who are committed to doing the logistical and organizational work necessary to keep the committee organized and moving. It is not fun or sexy, but it is rewarding in its own way. That is very much in my wheelhouse and would be the primary benefit of adding me to the committee. I am not opposed to being the person who does a lot of the behind-the-scenes grunt work to keep things going. I believe that will be particularly important with the GMC as there are many specific deadlines enshrined in RPIP-15 that will require coordination and corralling to regularly meet.
As mentioned above, I do have something of a platform that I am running on. RPIP-15 limits the percentage of award monies going to retrospective awards in any period to no more than 50%. I personally believe, especially in the beginning of the committee’s tenure, that we should be aiming for an even lower percentage. I realize this is somewhat paradoxical, as this moment is the one where we have the most people to recognize for their past contributions. I think there is also wide agreement though, that the next year is a crucial one for growing the protocol and competing with more centralized staking providers, and thus I think we should be targeting as much of our limited grants monies towards projects that will prospectively help that growth. I believe it’s important that the committee be transparent in establishing which retrospective awards are very deserving of funds once they are available, so those people know that their work is appreciated and that they are likely in line to receive an award in future periods. But especially in these early rounds, I would very much like to see the committee focusing on current and future projects, with some limited retrospective awards given out and the promise of more in future rounds.