Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance

[Jan Blunck <Jan.Blunck@brocade.com>]

On Mo, 2016-10-31 at 16:56 +0000, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> We do have a Technical Board (effectively a TSC with a different
> name) for DPDK in place already (see http://dpdk.org/dev#board). We
> deliberately populated this board based on the most significant
> contributors to the project, and made sure that it was balanced so
> that no single company had a majority. Current composition is 2
> members from Intel, 2 from 6WIND, 1 from Cavium, 1 from Red Hat and 1
> from Microsoft.
>  
> My proposal would be that we keep this board in place rather than
> create a new TSC. I do think we need to more clearly define the scope
> of the board and how people are added to/removed from it, but I don’t
> see a reason to change or replace it.
> 

+1

Right now I do not see enough reason to replace the technical board. On
the other hand I do understand Matts point that for anyone not
attending DPDK Userspace Summit 2015 it is hard to understand how the
board was chosen. Therefore I believe it is necessary to define and
document a transparent process to mandate the technical board.

I don't think that mixing the governance of the financial and technical
aspects of the project is the right thing to do though. Especially the
technical architecture should not be defined by committee (technical
board) but through collaboration in-the-open (on the development
mailing list). This is a transparent process with low entrance
boundaries that is proven to work also for other projects than DPDK.

Thanks,
Jan