[dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

Firstly, just a reminder on today's meeting. It's at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. Access numbers are:
    France: +33 1588 77298
    UK: +44 179340 2663
    USA: +1 916 356 2663	
    Bridge Number: 5
    Conference ID: 94641018
    Link to Skype meeting: https://meet.intel.com/tim.odriscoll/G7H113HY

At last week's meeting we had some discussion on the responsibilities of the (Administrative/DPDK/Governing) Board and the Technical Board. We agreed we'd focus on the roles and responsibilities of these two bodies at today's meeting.

Looking at the draft charter in preparation for today's meeting, responsibilities for these two bodies weren't clearly defined and were in different parts of the document. So, I've consolidated these into a new section 3 on Project Governance which hopefully will make things clearer. We'll walk through this at today's meeting.

I've made updates in areas where I think we have agreement, but people should feel free to comment if that's not the case. I've added notes on things that I think we haven't yet agreed on and need to discuss.

I've left the previous text in the document for now and haven't marked any comments on that as resolved. Once we've updated and agreed on the new text, I'll clean the document up, mark comments as resolved, and delete the old parts.


Tim

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Vincent JARDIN]

> At last week's meeting we had some discussion on the responsibilities of the (Administrative/DPDK/Governing) Board and the Technical Board. We agreed we'd focus on the roles and responsibilities of these two bodies at today's meeting.
>

Please, let's start reviewing the technical board first in order to be 
sure that start having a proper understanding of this body.

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Dave Neary]

Hi all,

I made a significant insertion/suggestion into the Charter, and asked a
few related questions. The insertion was an attempt to describe the
current state of the technical governance of the DPDK project. Please,
if there are corrections to be made, make them.

My feeling is that this section should be owned by the Technical
Governing Board, not the main Governing Board, so my first question was:
should this be a separate document, referred to in the main doc? That
way, the description of the governance there is not subject to change by
a 2/3rd majority of the governing board (sec 12).

My second question was how much we want to document the current state,
versus the process in the abstract? Should we list the current members
of the TGB, or instead point to a place which will be the definitive
list of the current TGB at all times (including after changes)?

Thirdly, I proposed that we have one at-large Governing Board member,
elected by the technical community, to add some more developer voice,
and potentially diversity from companies who are not members.

Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software
project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being
under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software project
is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation in
the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the
most part.

Any feedback/comments/tomatoes to throw?

Thanks,
Dave.

On 11/22/2016 06:08 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> Firstly, just a reminder on today's meeting. It's at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. Access numbers are:
>     France: +33 1588 77298
>     UK: +44 179340 2663
>     USA: +1 916 356 2663	
>     Bridge Number: 5
>     Conference ID: 94641018
>     Link to Skype meeting: https://meet.intel.com/tim.odriscoll/G7H113HY
> 
> At last week's meeting we had some discussion on the responsibilities of the (Administrative/DPDK/Governing) Board and the Technical Board. We agreed we'd focus on the roles and responsibilities of these two bodies at today's meeting.
> 
> Looking at the draft charter in preparation for today's meeting, responsibilities for these two bodies weren't clearly defined and were in different parts of the document. So, I've consolidated these into a new section 3 on Project Governance which hopefully will make things clearer. We'll walk through this at today's meeting.
> 
> I've made updates in areas where I think we have agreement, but people should feel free to comment if that's not the case. I've added notes on things that I think we haven't yet agreed on and need to discuss.
> 
> I've left the previous text in the document for now and haven't marked any comments on that as resolved. Once we've updated and agreed on the new text, I'll clean the document up, mark comments as resolved, and delete the old parts.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

I've added a few specific comments below.

Firstly an apology. The version you edited is the original one I created. Due to Intel IT restrictions there was no way for me to give public access to that, so Mike Dolan created a new version at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs which anybody can access. We're using that version now.

I wanted to keep the original version in place because people had entered comments and it's useful to still be able to see those. What I should have done was to change the permissions on the old version to make it read only. I've done that now.


Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:27 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated
> Charter
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I made a significant insertion/suggestion into the Charter, and asked a
> few related questions. The insertion was an attempt to describe the
> current state of the technical governance of the DPDK project. Please,
> if there are corrections to be made, make them.
> 
> My feeling is that this section should be owned by the Technical
> Governing Board, not the main Governing Board, so my first question was:
> should this be a separate document, referred to in the main doc? That
> way, the description of the governance there is not subject to change by
> a 2/3rd majority of the governing board (sec 12).

I was thinking the same thing last night. Mike Dolan's comments on Tuesday about not putting things in the charter if we might want to change them in future made me wonder if we should limit the scope of the technical governance that's documented there. My preference would be to use the charter to document the Technical Board as that's our governance/decision-making body for technical issues, but to leave the rest of the technical governance (git repository structure, sub-trees, MAINTAINERS file, what the maintainers' responsibilities are, how maintainers are added/removed etc.) out of the charter. We could then continue to maintain that info as at present in the Contributor's Guidelines (http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html) and DPDK.org Development page (http://dpdk.org/dev), and simply add a link to it from the charter. Then if we want to make changes in future, they can be agreed on the dev@dpdk.org mailing list without need to update the charter.

> My second question was how much we want to document the current state,
> versus the process in the abstract? Should we list the current members
> of the TGB, or instead point to a place which will be the definitive
> list of the current TGB at all times (including after changes)?

I'd be in favour of documenting the responsibilities etc. of the Technical Board in the charter, but identifying the individual members on the DPDK.org Development page (http://dpdk.org/dev) so that they can change without requiring an update to the charter. Again we can link to that from the charter doc.

> Thirdly, I proposed that we have one at-large Governing Board member,
> elected by the technical community, to add some more developer voice,
> and potentially diversity from companies who are not members.

In the current draft of the charter I've specified that a Technical Board rep should be a member of the Governing Board. Are you proposing another technical rep in addition to that, or does that cover your suggestion?

> Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software
> project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being
> under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software project
> is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation in
> the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the
> most part.

The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership section. At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a membership category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people felt this was over-kill.

Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think something further is required?

> 
> Any feedback/comments/tomatoes to throw?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
> On 11/22/2016 06:08 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > Firstly, just a reminder on today's meeting. It's at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET,
> 10am EST, 7am PST. Access numbers are:
> >     France: +33 1588 77298
> >     UK: +44 179340 2663
> >     USA: +1 916 356 2663
> >     Bridge Number: 5
> >     Conference ID: 94641018
> >     Link to Skype meeting:
> https://meet.intel.com/tim.odriscoll/G7H113HY
> >
> > At last week's meeting we had some discussion on the responsibilities
> of the (Administrative/DPDK/Governing) Board and the Technical Board. We
> agreed we'd focus on the roles and responsibilities of these two bodies
> at today's meeting.
> >
> > Looking at the draft charter in preparation for today's meeting,
> responsibilities for these two bodies weren't clearly defined and were
> in different parts of the document. So, I've consolidated these into a
> new section 3 on Project Governance which hopefully will make things
> clearer. We'll walk through this at today's meeting.
> >
> > I've made updates in areas where I think we have agreement, but people
> should feel free to comment if that's not the case. I've added notes on
> things that I think we haven't yet agreed on and need to discuss.
> >
> > I've left the previous text in the document for now and haven't marked
> any comments on that as resolved. Once we've updated and agreed on the
> new text, I'll clean the document up, mark comments as resolved, and
> delete the old parts.
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Thomas Monjalon]

2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software
> > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being
> > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software project
> > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation in
> > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the
> > most part.
> 
> The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership section. At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a membership category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people felt this was over-kill.
> 
> Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think something further is required?

I think the membership section must be part of the governing board section.
So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing board.

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Matt Spencer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2127 bytes --]

I think I suggested a Contributor level member so that they could be allocated official positions in the charter.


It was also to track who had signed up to the CLA (or similar).


At the time we were discussing Silver member access to the Governing Board (in a 5-1 ratio, maximum 2 if I remember).  The Contributor level member was there to allow Contributor access to the board at a suggested 20-1 ratio with some maximum, voted for by their peers.


I think this level of membership is needed to track CLA?


/Matt

________________________________
From: moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Sent: 24 November 2016 13:26
To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Dave Neary
Cc: moving@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software
> > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being
> > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software project
> > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation in
> > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the
> > most part.
>
> The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership section. At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a membership category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people felt this was over-kill.
>
> Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think something further is required?

I think the membership section must be part of the governing board section.
So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing board.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3227 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

> From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 2:16 PM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>
> Cc: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter
>
> I think I suggested a Contributor level member so that they could be allocated official positions in the charter.
>
> It was also to track who had signed up to the CLA (or similar).
>
> At the time we were discussing Silver member access to the Governing Board (in a 5-1 ratio, maximum 2 if I remember).  The Contributor level member was there to allow Contributor access to the board at a suggested 20-1 ratio with some maximum, voted for by their peers.
>
> I think this level of membership is needed to track CLA?

The need for a CLA has been raised a couple of times and we do need to conclude on that. The current DPDK process (http://dpdk.org/dev#send) requires that each patch has a "Signed-off-by" line certifying that it's compliant with the Developer Certificate of Origin (http://developercertificate.org/). Can you explain what you think is not covered adequately by this?

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but from a quick glance at the Linaro CLA (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8xTReYFXqNtR0wwRUhqUEpwTUE/preview) it seems to cover essentially the same things with the biggest difference I saw being a grant of patent license. If we feel that a patent license is important then there are other ways to achieve that such as moving to the Apache 2.0 license (https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) for new contributions. Coverage with either approach (CLA or Apache 2.0) would only be partial anyway, as neither would apply to the existing DPDK code.

My concern over a CLA would be that the need to sign and submit paperwork before they can contribute to DPDK would deter smaller contributors.

>
> /Matt
>
> ________________________________________
> From: moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> Sent: 24 November 2016 13:26
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Dave Neary
> Cc: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter 
> 
> 2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> > > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software
> > > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being
> > > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software project
> > > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation in
> > > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the
> > > most part.
> > 
> > The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership section. At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a membership category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people felt this was over-kill.
> > 
> > Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think something further is required?
>
> I think the membership section must be part of the governing board section.
> So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing board.
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. 

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Vincent Jardin]

Matt,

Please explain why you think that contributions under BSD licenses are not 
proper contributions for patents. For instance, Free/Net/OpenBSD do not 
require any CLA so contribution process remains smooth.

Thank you,

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Ed Warnicke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1034 bytes --]

Speaking as someone who's been involved in thousands of discussions over
more than a decade evaluating issues like patent risk in consuming open
source software, I don't see a patent clause in a CLA offering any
realistic assurance to a downstream consumer.

Were I involved in a discussion around patent risk in DPDK, I would point
to its license.

That said (and keeping in mind that IANAL), I do *not* see any patent
protection in the BSD license similar to what one sees in the Apache 2
license, or the Eclipse Public License.  Please note: I am not advocating
here for a license change, just drawing attention to my perspective as
someone who's been deeply involved in such things for a long time.

Ed

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Vincent Jardin <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
wrote:

> Matt,
>
> Please explain why you think that contributions under BSD licenses are not
> proper contributions for patents. For instance, Free/Net/OpenBSD do not
> require any CLA so contribution process remains smooth.
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1441 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Vincent Jardin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1198 bytes --]

Again: please explain in case of *BSD OSes ?


Le 24 novembre 2016 19:20:03 Ed Warnicke <hagbard@gmail.com> a écrit :

> Speaking as someone who's been involved in thousands of discussions over
> more than a decade evaluating issues like patent risk in consuming open
> source software, I don't see a patent clause in a CLA offering any
> realistic assurance to a downstream consumer.
>
> Were I involved in a discussion around patent risk in DPDK, I would point
> to its license.
>
> That said (and keeping in mind that IANAL), I do *not* see any patent
> protection in the BSD license similar to what one sees in the Apache 2
> license, or the Eclipse Public License.  Please note: I am not advocating
> here for a license change, just drawing attention to my perspective as
> someone who's been deeply involved in such things for a long time.
>
> Ed
>
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Vincent Jardin <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Please explain why you think that contributions under BSD licenses are not
>> proper contributions for patents. For instance, Free/Net/OpenBSD do not
>> require any CLA so contribution process remains smooth.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1991 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Ed Warnicke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4095 bytes --]

I would strongly recommend using the DCO rather than the CLA.  Speaking as
someone who's walked numerous
CLAs through his legal group (sometimes more than once for a particular
CLA), I find them to be a *very* substantial impediment to contribution and
community building.

Ed

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:27 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
wrote:

>
> > From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 2:16 PM
> > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim <
> tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>
> > Cc: moving@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated
> Charter
> >
> > I think I suggested a Contributor level member so that they could be
> allocated official positions in the charter.
> >
> > It was also to track who had signed up to the CLA (or similar).
> >
> > At the time we were discussing Silver member access to the Governing
> Board (in a 5-1 ratio, maximum 2 if I remember).  The Contributor level
> member was there to allow Contributor access to the board at a suggested
> 20-1 ratio with some maximum, voted for by their peers.
> >
> > I think this level of membership is needed to track CLA?
>
> The need for a CLA has been raised a couple of times and we do need to
> conclude on that. The current DPDK process (http://dpdk.org/dev#send)
> requires that each patch has a "Signed-off-by" line certifying that it's
> compliant with the Developer Certificate of Origin (
> http://developercertificate.org/). Can you explain what you think is not
> covered adequately by this?
>
> I'm definitely not a lawyer, but from a quick glance at the Linaro CLA (
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8xTReYFXqNtR0wwRUhqUEpwTUE/preview) it
> seems to cover essentially the same things with the biggest difference I
> saw being a grant of patent license. If we feel that a patent license is
> important then there are other ways to achieve that such as moving to the
> Apache 2.0 license (https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) for new
> contributions. Coverage with either approach (CLA or Apache 2.0) would only
> be partial anyway, as neither would apply to the existing DPDK code.
>
> My concern over a CLA would be that the need to sign and submit paperwork
> before they can contribute to DPDK would deter smaller contributors.
>
> >
> > /Matt
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of Thomas Monjalon <
> thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> > Sent: 24 November 2016 13:26
> > To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Dave Neary
> > Cc: moving@dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated
> Charter
> >
> > 2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> > > > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software
> > > > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being
> > > > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software
> project
> > > > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation
> in
> > > > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the
> > > > most part.
> > >
> > > The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership
> section. At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a
> membership category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people
> felt this was over-kill.
> > >
> > > Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think
> something further is required?
> >
> > I think the membership section must be part of the governing board
> section.
> > So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing
> board.
> > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the
> information in any medium. Thank you.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5614 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Francois Ozog]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3200 bytes --]

Hi Matt,

I coy/paste Mike Dolan's comment on CLA:

"Most of our projects use the Apache CCLA if a CLA is required. We have a
fully automated e-signature management system for CLA signings. You can see
the CCLA for Kubernetes for example here:
https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement
<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement&sa=D&ust=1480344167438000&usg=AFQjCNEbhgdm3M7dTLB1Xxwp8af7LJcC-A>
"

I had Linaro member companie lawyers have a look at it and they said it is
fine.

So it should be nice to have such CCLA in place in DPDK.

FF

On 24 November 2016 at 15:16, Matt Spencer <Matt.Spencer@arm.com> wrote:

> I think I suggested a Contributor level member so that they could be
> allocated official positions in the charter.
>
>
> It was also to track who had signed up to the CLA (or similar).
>
> At the time we were discussing Silver member access to the Governing Board
> (in a 5-1 ratio, maximum 2 if I remember).  The Contributor level member
> was there to allow Contributor access to the board at a suggested 20-1
> ratio with some maximum, voted for by their peers.
>
>
> I think this level of membership is needed to track CLA?
>
>
> /Matt
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of Thomas Monjalon <
> thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> *Sent:* 24 November 2016 13:26
> *To:* O'Driscoll, Tim; Dave Neary
> *Cc:* moving@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated
> Charter
>
> 2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com <dneary@redhat.com>]
> > > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software
> > > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being
> > > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software project
> > > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation in
> > > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the
> > > most part.
> >
> > The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership
> section. At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a
> membership category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people
> felt this was over-kill.
> >
> > Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think
> something further is required?
>
> I think the membership section must be part of the governing board section.
> So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing board.
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the
> information in any medium. Thank you.
>



-- 
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Networking Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6348 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Thomas Monjalon]

2016-11-29 14:20, Francois Ozog:
> Hi Matt,
> 
> I coy/paste Mike Dolan's comment on CLA:
> 
> "Most of our projects use the Apache CCLA if a CLA is required. We have a
> fully automated e-signature management system for CLA signings. You can see
> the CCLA for Kubernetes for example here:
> https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement
> <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement&sa=D&ust=1480344167438000&usg=AFQjCNEbhgdm3M7dTLB1Xxwp8af7LJcC-A>
> "
> 
> I had Linaro member companie lawyers have a look at it and they said it is
> fine.
> 
> So it should be nice to have such CCLA in place in DPDK.

Why?

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Francois Ozog]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2774 bytes --]

On 29 November 2016 at 14:50, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
wrote:

> 2016-11-29 14:20, Francois Ozog:
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > I coy/paste Mike Dolan's comment on CLA:
> >
> > "Most of our projects use the Apache CCLA if a CLA is required. We have a
> > fully automated e-signature management system for CLA signings. You can
> see
> > the CCLA for Kubernetes for example here:
> > https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-
> license-agreement
> > <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://identity.
> linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-
> license-agreement&sa=D&ust=1480344167438000&usg=
> AFQjCNEbhgdm3M7dTLB1Xxwp8af7LJcC-A>
> > "
> >
> > I had Linaro member companie lawyers have a look at it and they said it
> is
> > fine.
> >
> > So it should be nice to have such CCLA in place in DPDK.
>
> Why?
>

In an early mail I said:

"I am not a lawyer and I am out of my league here. That said, we all know
that NDA's cannot be executed by any employee of a company. So, the DPDK
signoff is nice, but why implement a policy that is less binding for
something that may be involving very high liability issues?


DPDK says precisely "The purpose of the signoff is explained in the
Developer’s Certificate of Origin section of the Linux kernel guidelines.".
The following note says the contributor has to "understand" DCO...
So unless I have missed something, nothing says that a contributor SHALL
COMPLY to anything. And even if you change the sentences to include the
word comply:
- their should be a DPDK DCO not a pointer to some external project
- do you have properly recorded in your books a paer signed by an
authorized representative of a company ?
- the DCO itslef is somewhat loose: "The contribution is based upon
previous work that, to the best of my knowledge, is covered under an
appropriate open source license". It does not say it is:
     . free from patents
     . free to use in large scale production by an end customer (not a
developper). Or more precisely, the developper (say the NEP) has the right
to sell and the customer (the operator) has been transfered the right to
use.



Bottom line, it is desirable that companies properly engage their
responsability for licence, patents and copyright aspects.

The CLA should be signed by each contributor company at the moment of
joining: the company liability is engaged, not just the employee when
submitting patches.

There is probably some additional statement to be done for already
contributed code."


-- 
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Networking Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5862 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Vincent JARDIN]

Matt, Fifo,

> On 29 November 2016 at 14:50, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com
> <mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>> wrote:
>
>     2016-11-29 14:20, Francois Ozog:
>     > Hi Matt,
>     >
>     > I coy/paste Mike Dolan's comment on CLA:
>     >
>     > "Most of our projects use the Apache CCLA if a CLA is required. We have a
>     > fully automated e-signature management system for CLA signings. You can see
>     > the CCLA for Kubernetes for example here:
>     > https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement
>     >
>     <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement&sa=D&ust=1480344167438000&usg=AFQjCNEbhgdm3M7dTLB1Xxwp8af7LJcC-A
>     > "
>     >
>     > I had Linaro member companie lawyers have a look at it and they said it is
>     > fine.
>     >
>     > So it should be nice to have such CCLA in place in DPDK.
>
>     Why?
>
>
> In an early mail I said:

It is useless argument. We are not making any progress on it.
Assuming the technical folks do not want to change the current 
git+review+sign-off process by adding extra paper work, does it mean 
that Linaro and ARM cannot contribute do DPDK?

I feel we are beating a non issue here.

Thank you,
   Vincent