From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68CC958CB for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 00:54:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id p190so40523040wmp.1 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:subject :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dzflDeaqvD+/BfSkbpUAGvdD0TanLpz6sWtjJn1bbGc=; b=VdAtWq3XS4dUR3vqAN4i/3+HgwBap9jUGsklU1iwXhSZIpiH081fVIPsioQ3b+gu3O J3cfEEnDpyaIhH/EdoHtwj+6IiW1YvYrYKOGLjdlQTq4iUZ0DMdJ9lwODRH+vnC+ZEto F4UIKzdvfWw9afXRqHh2/4VDTCX1pHzYASd3NstrYjjVrqXqhNpYKCyKNozyNxG4qifS ugNMYFiW5tPYgtz+ROT6o8Uh2fDfuZnSj/+aJqre5r8WFjZycguxbD6Es5kN78oJyAnY UZJ9UFjp5QhmSCMN5I7Nihzb4lrF5WovmbaIv6wF+B/hfY8tkzcD5Gu4c+F2B4yciyMd yd5A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:date:message-id:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:subject:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dzflDeaqvD+/BfSkbpUAGvdD0TanLpz6sWtjJn1bbGc=; b=R/nR3qNJ69w5TVkq/UYy3adO4gqRlq8DyVvuNKnmw+k9p1bnU9pNIfwwrqRtCFtkun 8cqnxB77GhF+KfmJycZDV0/2l3BmNRaXZ7b2Xsp4AvlTXe3WyzBCAUkE+DkoH39uxGks WffcH3UFJ5W8eQxp7jH3Oqw53PqWjHV0hztBZ9EpP7wqz9wZg1E6M+A2eFJRTgCy9dH7 X+raGxpBG7pIizvdjE0CwtK83ChmtA/zpnBb64vbQtTzfBOWVwhKA+gmJRqAH7Mp5emN uPD/607daysIlZQbMqbVQOKMofNUBsPqBD86Ws7Da33hssEMx5SzcsLL9G2+0Au2Hzvr t0fw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvdfO6v4fpfimzDZpNDXXNAl3Qcfbf5SN49Xfl9Z8kAtOqW1eYJzIGRFiUS6jysaWJjk X-Received: by 10.194.127.161 with SMTP id nh1mr13035905wjb.61.1477695256133; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.90.105.33] ([80.214.66.187]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e2sm16328074wjw.14.2016.10.28.15.54.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:54:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Vincent Jardin To: Thomas Monjalon , , Matt Spencer Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 00:54:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1580d802a08.27fc.bb328046f2889bc8f44aafa891a44dd2@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <2677739.KbWyRmNgFH@xps13> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676091C7@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <2677739.KbWyRmNgFH@xps13> User-Agent: AquaMail/1.6.2.9 (build: 27000209) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance X-BeenThere: moving@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK community structure changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 22:54:16 -0000 Le 28 octobre 2016 9:22:43 PM Thomas Monjalon a écrit : > 2016-10-28 16:52, Matt Spencer: >> 1 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer >> As this stands today, that would give us 56 TSC members, >> with almost half of them from one company >> >> 2 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer - >> to a maximum of 20% membership of the TSC >> This would ensure that no one company can 'own' the TSC - >> 56 committers, so max TSC membership from one company would be 11 >> >> 3 - Maximum one member of TSC per committing company, >> plus one TSC assignee per paid member >> This would keep the TSC to a manageable level, give companies >> an incentive to join, but not require membership to be on the TSC >> >> 4 - Something else? >> >> My current thoughts are with 3 because we should end up with a >> representative cross section of the stakeholders of the project, >> whilst still incentivising membership of the foundation. > > Thanks for sharing your view. > > I'm an Open Source guy and I might lack some politician skills. > So please excuse me if I take the freedom to talk really frankly :) > > First of all, this email thread was dedicated to the technical governance. > And Matt is introducing money in this topic by talking about incentives. > I think it is a very interesting point that we must discuss. > From the beginning, everybody were saying that we must keep technical > governance and legal structure separate. > However one question has still no good answer: what is the incentive > for contributing money in the structure? > Is money going to biase the desired meritocratic system? > > My second comment is about having one company controlling the technical > governance. > I won't enter into the number details, and it's true that Intel provides > at least 50% of the contributions nowadays. Intel is also the biggest > contributor to Linux. No surprise. > I understand that a voice from ARM is requiring to mitigate this fact. > I would prefer ARM related companies working to achieve the same > level of commitment as Intel. They are increasing their contribution pace > but may never really compete with a giant like Intel. > That's why I second Matt to say that we must give a chance to every > vendors to influence the technical decisions. > Introducing a membership threshold looks to be a good idea. > > Having said that, I must state that the DPDK reality is a lot more > complex than a competition between vendors. > We are proving that a consensus based model works very well without > the need of a TSC or a board. > We can create such organization, but please keep in mind that it should > not be really helpful in the day-to-day job. +2 From contributions, meritocracy is applied.