From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f44.google.com (mail-wm0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4921201 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:10:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f44.google.com with SMTP id r144so123831973wme.1 for ; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:10:09 -0800 (PST) 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=QcAy18wSTC3jhqfWR6H1Q4bdS0j3YmCT5e2/4rtgAQw=; b=Wx0d9bwzJfYhgFO18XPXxpB5JvrAxr5Emz8k55wSQMcMSmS7Z1FNvgIxonGqXoNI9T oKZCBi68ugId6LPedkWCdyRN4hlP8H5l9eBZ0lkgJpjuTMsGEFF/AYnzFznAhI2c2gwy yqjZBlLAb0sxUxo0GbijVE2CGwwH9b+dXEveVFrLnz8rYKwpql8N02MMySUuGhy9hp5B Rl6b0O8XNpIPxV1C8aLOUaO0uNCkzQW5aBfdAlKkvsyhSyL6N+wbhwPEpqUjzv1LPXpM TrwQ8DbLBJOdPMaozK3Nv3EXM8ZorsShs+bh69ENSNbYdF0/LHurmXCppzboo7vVSjV2 7wfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QcAy18wSTC3jhqfWR6H1Q4bdS0j3YmCT5e2/4rtgAQw=; b=bv8h7/FmlNa5N+24JZD8FPPCsGKoAZPzlV/nCFjJ4rt4GppliR/woZVASx5peqC4Ii Sq0hOG+l4tdc7zP6NKjhwfpz//c21z5/YL0LexJEMcKU3Gr+cpRchLOJOisv7XBSJANX U2K+KEpj1u6Pw3+I/7hhh5VPAIaTlMCKMpUvSVGut8zlL4hS3pvGSQ1iSMtfv4tTIcUx C5RK/sQJEf6ODf2k+GQMLWoKy2znHNh22+uHLauj2UPgE9Bjs1NmwxxrlWEKgBOBagkw fBgMqyEU89TkvcCDOjUcX2OBc5iwj94jtEP3y5KhzkqdBNKvgc5oQxeIGVIvuQfBVyVN jQmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIx5hrzwUnuMjNrNPAnySe8Y2Fq8UzJUZiQTt8LQnn47V8YzoI2zutR7Xm7qZTTkdjD X-Received: by 10.28.51.72 with SMTP id z69mr2205068wmz.38.1485504609421; Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:10:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y97sm2473540wmh.24.2017.01.27.00.10.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:10:08 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "St Leger, Jim" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:10:07 +0100 Message-ID: <4894146.8cLKrSfNba@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <00B2C372B6E6DA4FB04934511BF0564A4CC1AD07@FMSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <8512033.OqnvuX0xuh@xps13> <00B2C372B6E6DA4FB04934511BF0564A4CC1AD07@FMSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] technical board meeting minutes 2017-01-25 X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 08:10:09 -0000 2017-01-26 23:14, St Leger, Jim: > It can be decided to remove a member if there is an approval of 2/3 of the whole technical board. > It can be decided either to replace the member, or to redefine the size of the board. > > > [>] Did you decide how the discussion or topic to remove a board member ever even comes up to begin with? > > [>] For example, does someone propose "I think we should remove so-and-so from the TSC/TechBoard" and then the board votes? > > I think this step will be very rare (maybe never), but it's important to know how/when the removal process can be initiated and if limited by who? (e.g. can anyone in the community suggest to remove someone? Can only TechBoard/TSC members suggest to remove someone? What board member behavior would justify removal?) The global idea of the technical board is to discuss and answer to the questions asked by anyone. So yes, anyone can suggest the removal of any member of the technical board. We will write the process on the website. > We have chosen (with global consensus) 3 new members to join the technical board. > They will be announced soon when we will have their agreement. > The new board will probably count 9 members. > > > [>] What is the delay in announcing the new members? Is it so important to have a formal delay? We just need to get an agreement from the new members, and sometimes (as today) people may be in holidays. > [>] Not to be flippant, but the LF governance discussion and especially budget includes line items for funding events such as DPDK Summit Userspace. But if we can't get a point of agreement on the budget, get to an agreement on membership fees, and recruit enough member companies to the project, then future events will be dependent on our ability to raise sponsorship funds across the community. Efforts to do this in the past have only shown support from Intel, Red Hat, and Cisco. No other company has yet agreed to help financially sponsor any of the Summit events. Got it. > * Should we have regular meetings? > We do not want to spend too many time in meetings. > However a short meeting (less than a hour) every two weeks may be relevant. > > [>] I assume you are referring solely to the TechBoard/TSC meeting. Yes, this whole discussion is only about the technical board. > * Should we organize regular public IRC meetings? > It does not scale to have too many participants in a meeting. > In order to keep meetings short, they will be private. > Everybody can discuss on the mailing list. > > [>] Are you referring to TSC/TechBoard meetings here too? Or are you referring to regular community calls? > If community calls, I disagree and believe there should be a regular community project call to discuss any/all issues. Items that go back and forth many times on the mailing list could be resolved in a community call with verbal discussion in just a few minutes. Other key topics such as RFCs and others could also be discussed to help drive better resource alignment and priorities for the community. There are many benefits of a DPDK Project weekly community call, though some meetings might be quite short while others longer (but all less than an hour.) We were talking about technical board meetings. The community calls are different things.