Re: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

["O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>]

Hi HK,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Hobywan Kenoby
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:24 AM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
> users@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> 
> The Linux kernel community has a governance close to DPDK. It did allow
> companies to grow largebusinesses and indivuals to take an
> active and even influencial roles based on their technical expertise and
> merits.
> 
> I don't really understand what can be gained by moving to Linux
> Foundation, but I am almost sure that no individual expert will be able
> to take any leaderhip role as those roles will be fulfilled by Platinum,
> Gold or Silver members: right ?

No. If DPDK were to move to LF as an independent project, then as discussed at the Userspace event in Dublin last year, and as documented in the original post below, the intention would be not to make any significant changes to the technical governance.

If DPDK were to move to FD.io the situation would be the same. The FD.io Technical Community Charter (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) specifies how Project Technical Leaders and Committers are nominated and approved, but there's no requirement for people in those roles to come from Platinum, Gold or Silver FD.io members. Those decisions are based purely on technical merit.

> VPP is a virtual switch that has its own event model that may compete
> with the new model proposed by Intel, Cavium and NXP. What would be the
> acceptability of such a proposal if DPDK would have been folded into
> FD.IO?

Acceptance of the libeventdev proposal would be no different if DPDK were part of FD.io. It would be reviewed and accepted based on its technical merit.

FD.io is an umbrella project comprising a number of individual sub-projects. Those sub-projects are free to make their own technical decisions. This is documented in the Guiding Principles section of the FD.io Technical Community Charter (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter):

4.Technical decisions (including release decisions) for a project should be made by consensus of that project's Committers.  If consensus cannot be reached, decisions are made by a majority vote of a project's Committers.  Committers on a project may, by majority vote, delegate (or revoke delegation of) any portion of the project's decisions to an alternate open, documented, traceable decision making process.

> Intellectual property is probably properly handled in this community (I
> don't really know a lot about this): are there things to be done on DPDK
> to match was proved to be sufficient in Linux kernel?

I think Intellectual Property is already properly handled within DPDK. Being part of the Linux Foundation would provide a legal framework for dealing with any trademark or other legal issues that may occur in future.

> The current DPDK version can run on virtually all processors (Intel, IBM
> and ARM) and leverage all NICs: is there **really** anyone questionning
> openness of the community?

I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with others who put their names to the post below, they do too. I think it's a perception that we need to address.

> 
> - HK
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim
> <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:33 AM
> To: dev@dpdk.org; users@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
> 
> This email is being sent on behalf of: Cavium, Cisco, Intel, NXP & Red
> Hat.
> 
> 
> Since its creation as an open source project in 2013, DPDK has grown
> significantly. The number of DPDK users, contributors, commercial
> products that use DPDK and open source projects that depend on it have
> all increased consistently over that time. DPDK is now a key ingredient
> in networking and NFV, and we need to ensure that the project structure
> and governance are appropriate for such a critical project, and that
> they facilitate the project's continued growth.
> 
> For over a year now we've been discussing moving DPDK to the Linux
> Foundation. We believe it's now time to conclude that discussion and
> make the move. The benefits of doing this would include:
> - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and
> controlled by any single company.
> - Remove any remaining perception that DPDK is not truly open.
> - Allow the project to avail of the infrastructure and services provided
> by the Linux Foundation. These include things like: Ability to host
> infrastructure for integration and testing (the FD.io CSIT lab is an
> example of this - see https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed);
> Support for legal issues including trademarks and branding, and the
> ability to sign agreements on behalf of the project; Ability to pool
> resources for events and brand promotion; Safe haven for community IP
> resources.
> CSIT/CSIT LF testbed -
> fd.io<https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed>
> wiki.fd.io
> FD.IO CSIT testbed - Server HW Configuration. CSIT testbed contains
> following three HW configuration types of UCS x86 servers, across total
> of ten servers provided:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't propose to debate the details here. Instead, an open discussion
> session on DPDK Project Growth has been included in the agenda for the
> DPDK Summit Userspace 2016 event in Dublin. We propose using that
> session to agree that the DPDK project will move to the Linux
> Foundation, and then to move on to discussing the specifics. Things that
> we'll need to consider include:
> - Whether DPDK moves to the Linux Foundation as an independent project
> or as part of a larger project like FD.io.
> - Creation of a project charter similar to those created for FD.io
> (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) and Open vSwitch
> (see
> http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160619/5a2df53e/a
> ttachment-0001.pdf).
> [https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/theme/backgrounds/bg.jpg]<https://
> fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter>
> 
> Technical Community Charter | FD.io<https://fd.io/governance/technical-
> community-charter>
> fd.io
> 3.3.4 Project Reviews. For each review, there will be a publicly visible
> wiki/web template filled out containing relevant review information. The
> review document must ...
> 
> 
> 
> - Agreement on budget, membership levels etc. A draft budget was created
> by the LF during previous discussions
> (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-
> 3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=302618256), but it
> is possible to adopt an even more lightweight model.
> 
> We could look at alternatives to the Linux Foundation, but a) we've been
> talking to the LF for over a year now, and b) the preponderance of
> networking projects in LF, like ODL, FD.io, and OVS, makes it a natural
> destination for DPDK.
> 
> As highlighted in previous discussions on this topic, it's important to
> stress that the intent is not to make significant changes to the
> technical governance and decision making of the project. The project has
> a strong set of maintainers and a Technical Board in place already.
> What's required is to supplement that with an open governance structure
> taking advantage of the services offered by the Linux Foundation.
> 
> The purpose of this email is to outline what we want to achieve during
> that discussion session in Dublin, and to allow people to consider the
> issue and prepare in advance. If people want to comment via email on the
> mailing list, that's obviously fine, but we believe that an open and
> frank discussion when people meet in person in Dublin is the best way to
> progress this.
> 
> 
> For reference, below is a brief history of the previous discussions on
> this topic:
> 
> September 2015:
> - A DPDK community call was held to discuss project growth and possible
> improvements. This was the first public discussion on possible
> governance changes. The agreed next step was to discuss this in more
> detail at the 2015 DPDK Summit Userspace event Dublin. Minutes of the
> call are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/024120.html.
> 
> October 2015:
> - An open discussion session on project governance was held at the 2015
> DPDK Summit Userspace event. For technical governance, we agreed to
> investigate creating a technical steering committee. For non-technical
> governance (including things like event planning, legal and trademark
> issues, hosting of the website etc.), we agreed to work with the Linux
> Foundation on a proposal for a lightweight governance model for DPDK.
> Minutes of the discussion are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-
> October/024825.html.
> 
> - The proposal for a technical steering committee was subsequently
> discussed on the mailing list (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-
> October/026598.html) and agreed, leading to the creation of the DPDK
> Technical Board (http://dpdk.org/dev#board).
> 
> December 2015:
> - A community call was held to discuss migration to the Linux
> Foundation. Mike Dolan (VP of Strategic Programs at The Linux
> Foundation) gave an overview of the LF and the services they can
> provide. We agreed to form a small sub-team (Dave Neary, Thomas
> Monjalon, Stephen Hemminger, Tim O'Driscoll) to work with the LF on a
> more detailed proposal. Minutes of the call are at:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-December/030532.html.
> 
> February 2016:
> - A community call was held to discuss the LF budget proposal (see
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-
> 3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=302618256). We
> agreed to discuss this further on the dev mailing list due to limited
> attendance on the call. Minutes of the call are at:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/032720.html.
> 
> - A request was made on the dev and announce mailing lists too determine
> who supported the proposal to move to the Linux Foundation
> (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033192.html). There was
> public support from Intel (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-
> February/033297.html) and Brocade (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-
> February/033359.html). 6WIND requested postponing the move for a few
> months (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033299.html).
> 
> - The Fast Data (FD.io) project was established under the Linux
> Foundation (https://fd.io/news/announcement/2016/02/linux-foundation-
> forms-open-source-effort-advance-io-services).
> [https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/theme/backgrounds/bg.jpg]<https://
> fd.io/news/announcement/2016/02/linux-foundation-forms-open-source-
> effort-advance-io-services>
> 
> The Linux Foundation Forms Open Source Effort to Advance
> ...<https://fd.io/news/announcement/2016/02/linux-foundation-forms-open-
> source-effort-advance-io-services>
> fd.io
> Industry leaders unite for Fast Data (FD.io) Project; aims to establish
> a high-performance IO services framework for dynamic computing
> environments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> June 2016:
> - The Open vSwitch project proposed moving to the Linux Foundation
> (http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-June/021761.html).
> [ovs-discuss] Request for comments on Open vSwitch joining
> ...<http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-June/021761.html>
> openvswitch.org
> Since roughly October, some of the OVS committers have been talking over
> the idea of bringing Open vSwitch into a foundation. Originally the
> group discussing the idea ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> August 2016:
> - The Open vSwitch project moved to the Linux Foundation
> (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/announcements/open-vswitch-joins-linux-
> foundation-open-networking-ecosystem).
> Open vSwitch Joins Linux Foundation Open Networking
> ...<https://www.linuxfoundation.org/announcements/open-vswitch-joins-
> linux-foundation-open-networking-ecosystem>
> www.linuxfoundation.org
> SAN FRANCISCO - AUGUST 09, 2016 - The Linux Foundation, the nonprofit
> advancing professional open source management for mass collaboration
> today is announcing ...
> 
>