From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B535B5688 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:27:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id c78so44122454wme.1 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:27:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QJA+KLlO2mZkNYSIVoroIRcnDIu5tzbwLZItwlPGU7k=; b=FR1CvCn+7w3lAe2YvqGVbMsbnUfNFJiH0ep9Bp7H1HcbSdAMoTf6nUanNlu+72djgH ogJBcI/85Fn8MzrQbW7GlpK+j1lzxx99/N99KLZJ0TxQAd81eS7N92+2mOP6rty8hp07 mAqOUYv5gylqwgS0/vZ9iJlvi/Toc3HWqJVoTjRqP4d71fGShOnEEj9l4Oq6JVeifs/u tRo3hXki7V49CVnHa7KffMb2xapktf2MhxKrNpbveddCUw2Pfl+k4jlaNLk+hur6rW4w aM6ARXdmERl0AZMYGs1xFachKOiyveRIGrc/oQFXZ5pcUwdgkoICrFIJUdwxoYcbFeUz 3aJA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QJA+KLlO2mZkNYSIVoroIRcnDIu5tzbwLZItwlPGU7k=; b=Pup8TBIsJQi29sd2w2xaYNHnZKrKkKaUtvrlYawVbgLQyo5B1TeYCsFUwa8xT8Sw8d 9EbDGLU/7bJ3cVP3KnK4T+7iQzLyVkIPwJTEra57pS1h4gzEMO1kB8Dk1+PSNVJPF5p8 X5I2wqIz66a8ATb2/Ibl8RbRyuxVD5TR9tSjto/Q80XkeqqQ69wF36gisYlAorCpKgW8 SZeI8faTR1zh7wt+n9GBKeaANGmehD1FoT7fZr/T/Hl/fy9IQIBwE7yTcSpZUPtco/H2 qFrvOcYMK2Vll7h4PNHUgKjVZ2xef6yL+cBC/q/uonyvO8oUA/BuAHlzKZ4mV98P6DpX XvFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngveNFmAhMsyjo4qu57OEAh8C6jy+pgntNkF1TNL5jOMRi2Nk7GXpl+2EYicS8FSMh7dH X-Received: by 10.28.26.193 with SMTP id a184mr1727116wma.93.1477164445366; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet ([37.228.255.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g142sm5282282wmd.2.2016.10.22.12.27.24 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:27:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> To: moving@dpdk.org Cc: dev@dpdk.org, users@dpdk.org Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:27:23 +0200 Message-ID: <16801110.dITe5Z9CHy@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <580A1F94.9080304@redhat.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <580A1F94.9080304@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 19:27:26 -0000 Hi, Thanks Dave for the report. I suggest to continue on the new mailing list: moving@dpdk.org Please register if you are interested in the structure move: http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/moving 2016-10-21 15:00, Dave Neary: > Hi all, > > We had a great session yesterday on this topic, I took some notes - does > anyone who was there have any corrections, or anyone who was not have > any comments? > > Thanks, > Dave. > > Tim led the discussion, and started by outlining that he saw there were > 3 different questions which we should treat independently: > > 1. Is there a benefit to moving DPDK to a foundation? > 2. If the answer is yes: there are two options currently proposed - a > low overhead, independent project under the Linux Foundation (LF Lite), > or joining fd.io as a sub-project. Which one of these is preferable, or > is there another option to consider? > 3. Are there any related changes we should consider in technical > infrastructure and project governance? > > I outlined some advantages I see to the Linux Foundation: > * Pool resources for events > * Provides some legal foresight > * LF standing behind a project gives some companies assurances that > there is good, open technical governance and a level playing field for > participants > > Stephen Hemminger asked if there was a sponsorship requirement. Tim > responded that it is possible to do what Open vSwitch has done, and have > no membership funding requirement. What that means is that any funds the > project community wants to spend needs to be budgeted ad hoc. > > A number of others (Shreyansh Jain, Matt Spencer) said they would like > to see a formal model for non-technical engagement, legal protection for > patent and copyright, and more clarity on the technical governance. > > Vincent Jardin said that whatever happens, it is vital that DPDK remain > an open, community-run project. > > A number of people expressed interest in the change, but could not > commit to funding. > > Jerome Tollet said that he felt it was important to have better test and > CI infrastructure, and that these cost money. He proposed that since > fd.io already has infrastructure and a lab, that this would be an > affordable option for doing this. > > Vincent and Thomas Monjalon suggested that distributed testing was a > better option - creating an opportunity for different people to send > test results to a central gathering point. Thomas mentioned that > Patchwork has a feature which allows aggregation of test results for > specific patches now. > > Tim asked if there was agreement on a move, and there was no opposition. > Vincent suggested opening a call for proposals to have a wider range of > choices than LF Lite or fd.io. Jim St. Leger said we have already had a > group who evaluated options and made a proposal, and we should not re-do > the process. > > Jerome recommended that we focus on requirements and criteria for > determining the choice: timing, governance requirements, budget, and > hardware/infrastructure requirements. Keith Wiles suggested that there > was a need for some budgetary requirement to show commitment of > participating companies. > > When asked about transferring the ownership of the domain name to Linux > Foundation, Vincent reiterated that his main concern was keeping the > project open, and that he did not anticipate that transferring the > domain ownership would be an issue. > > Moving on to question 2: > > I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the > project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset > changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io, OVS, and > OPNFV to do testing of DPDK. > > Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a preference > for a stand-alone lightweight project - one concern voiced was that > there is a potential perception issue with fd.io too. > > Maciek K and Jerome encouraged everyone not to underestimate the > difficulty in setting up good CI and testing processes. > > To close out the meeting, Tim summarised the consensus decisions: > > * We agreed to move to a foundation > * A group will work on re-doing a budget proposal with the Linux > Foundation - target of 4 weeks to come up with a budget proposal for the > community > * There is a preference for an independent project rather than being a > sub-project > > Budget group: > * Matt Spencer, ARM > * Jerome Tollet, Cisco > * Ed Warnicke, Cisco > * Shreyansh Jain, NXP > * Dave Neary, Red Hat > * Jan Blunk, Brocade > * Vincent Jardin, 6WIND > * Thomas Monjalon, 6WIND > * Tim O'Driscoll, Intel > * Francois Ozog, Linaro > * John Bromhead (sp?), Cavium