DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / Atom feed
* [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
@ 2017-01-11 22:16 O'Driscoll, Tim
  2017-01-12  9:09 ` Francois Ozog
  2017-01-12 12:55 ` Vincent JARDIN
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: O'Driscoll, Tim @ 2017-01-11 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: moving

Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct any errors or to add additional details.

Attendees: Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Elsie Wahlig (Qualcomm), Erez Scop (Mellanox), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), John Bromhead (Cavium), John McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Kevin Traynor (Red Hat), Mike Dolan (Linux Foundation), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Stephen Hemminger (Microsoft), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND).

Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things:
Project Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs
Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html
Minutes of October 31st call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000031.html
Minutes of November 8th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000058.html
Minutes of November 15th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000061.html
Minutes of November 22nd call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000085.html
Minutes of November 29th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000099.html
Minutes of December 6th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000121.html
Minutes of December 13th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000124.html
Minutes of December 20th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000127.html
Technical governance, including info on Maintainers and sub-trees: http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html & http://dpdk.org/dev.

Reviewed the latest comments on the project charter. These were the significant discussion points:

Do we need a clause to prevent gold members being outnumbered by silver members on the board?
- There's already a <TBD> cap on the number of Silver members on the board in clause 3.1.2 ii, so this is already covered. We will need to decide on the <TBD> value during membership discussions.

Should the Governing Board meetings be public? The reasons given (primarily by Mike and Ed) for not doing this were:
- Legal issues. The GB may need to discuss legal issues which should be kept confidential. Attorneys will also not be willing to give opinions in public meetings. For some companies, their legal counsel will not allow them to participate in public board meetings.
- Potential new members. The GB may need to discuss potential new members who may not have been contacted yet, or who may not want their interest in DPDK made public until their membership is finalized.
- Confidential budget info. Budgets may contain confidential info such as salaries which should not be discussed/disclosed in public.
We agreed to consider this again and agree at the next meeting. If there's no consensus then we'll need to vote.

Should Tech Board meetings should be public?
- Agreed that they should. The charter has been updated to reflect this.

Should we have a Contributor membership level? Mike elaborated on his previous guidance not to do this:
- It doesn't serve any purpose. Contributors can be recognized in other ways (on a web page, in an AUTHORS file in the git repo etc.).
- Membership has a legal meaning for the LF and contributors may not meet comply (e.g. a member of an LF project needs to be a member of the LF, but a contributor does not).
- Others felt that this would just add overhead and cause confusion.
Agreed that we don't see a need for this.

Do DPDK project members need to be LF members?
- The answer is yes. LF membership rates are documented in the LF bylaws (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws). I've added a link to the charter doc. Mike has clarified further in a separate email (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-January/000135.html).

Should Gold and Silver members pay the same rate for lab resources?
- Vincent proposed that Gold and Silver members pay the same rate for lab resources. I disagreed with this as it means that Gold members are paying twice - they provide more funding for the project through a higher membership fee, but would then be expected to also pay the same rate as Silver members who've contributed less.
- We agreed that we would leave details of costs for different membership levels to be determined by the Governing Board. I'll update the charter to reflect this.

Are there, or do there need to be, any DPDK trademarks?
- This discussion was prompted by Vincent's question on who can use the term DPDK in announcements etc. Nobody on the call was aware of any DPDK trademarks, but that's not a definitive answer. Agreed that Mike Dolan will consider trademarks in his discussions with legal representatives. If anybody wants to be represented in these discussions and hasn't already done so, they should provide the name of their legal counsel to Mike.

Next Meeting:
Tuesday January 17th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We need to agree on whether or not Governing Board meetings should be public, resolve any remaining comments on the charter, and then discuss next steps for identifying membership rates, project members etc.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
  2017-01-11 22:16 [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th O'Driscoll, Tim
@ 2017-01-12  9:09 ` Francois Ozog
  2017-01-12 12:07   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
  2017-01-12 12:55 ` Vincent JARDIN
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Francois Ozog @ 2017-01-12  9:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: O'Driscoll, Tim; +Cc: moving, Dave Neary

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6159 bytes --]

Hi,

Thanks for the update.

I have missed a couple of calls and did not found notes on the following
topic: dpdk.org domain ownership.

I think i has been a discussion topic during Dublin and thought that Dave
Neary may have said (unsure) that it was assumed that the dpdk.org domain
ownership should be transferred to LF.

Was there a discussion/conclusion on this ?

Cordially,

FF

On 11 January 2017 at 23:16, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
wrote:

> Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct any
> errors or to add additional details.
>
> Attendees: Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Elsie Wahlig (Qualcomm), Erez Scop
> (Mellanox), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan
> Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), John Bromhead (Cavium), John
> McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Kevin Traynor (Red Hat), Mike Dolan
> (Linux Foundation), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Stephen Hemminger (Microsoft),
> Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND).
>
> Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things:
> Project Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-
> e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs
> Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html
> Minutes of October 31st call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000031.html
> Minutes of November 8th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000058.html
> Minutes of November 15th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000061.html
> Minutes of November 22nd call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000085.html
> Minutes of November 29th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000099.html
> Minutes of December 6th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-December/000121.html
> Minutes of December 13th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-December/000124.html
> Minutes of December 20th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-December/000127.html
> Technical governance, including info on Maintainers and sub-trees:
> http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html & http://dpdk.org/dev.
>
> Reviewed the latest comments on the project charter. These were the
> significant discussion points:
>
> Do we need a clause to prevent gold members being outnumbered by silver
> members on the board?
> - There's already a <TBD> cap on the number of Silver members on the board
> in clause 3.1.2 ii, so this is already covered. We will need to decide on
> the <TBD> value during membership discussions.
>
> Should the Governing Board meetings be public? The reasons given
> (primarily by Mike and Ed) for not doing this were:
> - Legal issues. The GB may need to discuss legal issues which should be
> kept confidential. Attorneys will also not be willing to give opinions in
> public meetings. For some companies, their legal counsel will not allow
> them to participate in public board meetings.
> - Potential new members. The GB may need to discuss potential new members
> who may not have been contacted yet, or who may not want their interest in
> DPDK made public until their membership is finalized.
> - Confidential budget info. Budgets may contain confidential info such as
> salaries which should not be discussed/disclosed in public.
> We agreed to consider this again and agree at the next meeting. If there's
> no consensus then we'll need to vote.
>
> Should Tech Board meetings should be public?
> - Agreed that they should. The charter has been updated to reflect this.
>
> Should we have a Contributor membership level? Mike elaborated on his
> previous guidance not to do this:
> - It doesn't serve any purpose. Contributors can be recognized in other
> ways (on a web page, in an AUTHORS file in the git repo etc.).
> - Membership has a legal meaning for the LF and contributors may not meet
> comply (e.g. a member of an LF project needs to be a member of the LF, but
> a contributor does not).
> - Others felt that this would just add overhead and cause confusion.
> Agreed that we don't see a need for this.
>
> Do DPDK project members need to be LF members?
> - The answer is yes. LF membership rates are documented in the LF bylaws (
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws). I've added a link to the
> charter doc. Mike has clarified further in a separate email (
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-January/000135.html).
>
> Should Gold and Silver members pay the same rate for lab resources?
> - Vincent proposed that Gold and Silver members pay the same rate for lab
> resources. I disagreed with this as it means that Gold members are paying
> twice - they provide more funding for the project through a higher
> membership fee, but would then be expected to also pay the same rate as
> Silver members who've contributed less.
> - We agreed that we would leave details of costs for different membership
> levels to be determined by the Governing Board. I'll update the charter to
> reflect this.
>
> Are there, or do there need to be, any DPDK trademarks?
> - This discussion was prompted by Vincent's question on who can use the
> term DPDK in announcements etc. Nobody on the call was aware of any DPDK
> trademarks, but that's not a definitive answer. Agreed that Mike Dolan will
> consider trademarks in his discussions with legal representatives. If
> anybody wants to be represented in these discussions and hasn't already
> done so, they should provide the name of their legal counsel to Mike.
>
> Next Meeting:
> Tuesday January 17th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We need to
> agree on whether or not Governing Board meetings should be public, resolve
> any remaining comments on the charter, and then discuss next steps for
> identifying membership rates, project members etc.
>



-- 
[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: 9623 bytes --]

<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the update.</div><div><br></div><div>I have missed a couple of calls and did not found notes on the following topic: <a href="http://dpdk.org">dpdk.org</a> domain ownership.</div><div><br></div><div>I think i has been a discussion topic during Dublin and thought that Dave Neary may have said (unsure) that it was assumed that the <a href="http://dpdk.org">dpdk.org</a> domain ownership should be transferred to LF. </div><div><br></div><div>Was there a discussion/conclusion on this ?</div><div><br></div><div>Cordially,</div><div><br></div><div>FF</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 January 2017 at 23:16, O&#39;Driscoll, Tim <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com" target="_blank">tim.odriscoll@intel.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Here are my notes from Tuesday&#39;s call. Please feel free to correct any errors or to add additional details.<br>
<br>
Attendees: Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Elsie Wahlig (Qualcomm), Erez Scop (Mellanox), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), John Bromhead (Cavium), John McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Kevin Traynor (Red Hat), Mike Dolan (Linux Foundation), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Stephen Hemminger (Microsoft), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O&#39;Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND).<br>
<br>
Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things:<br>
Project Charter: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr>document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-<wbr>e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs</a><br>
Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: <a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>dev/2016-October/049259.html</a><br>
Minutes of October 31st call: <a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000031.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>moving/2016-November/000031.<wbr>html</a><br>
Minutes of November 8th call: <a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000058.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>moving/2016-November/000058.<wbr>html</a><br>
Minutes of November 15th call: <a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000061.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>moving/2016-November/000061.<wbr>html</a><br>
Minutes of November 22nd call: <a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000085.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>moving/2016-November/000085.<wbr>html</a><br>
Minutes of November 29th call: <a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000099.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>moving/2016-November/000099.<wbr>html</a><br>
Minutes of December 6th call: <a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000121.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>moving/2016-December/000121.<wbr>html</a><br>
Minutes of December 13th call: <a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000124.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>moving/2016-December/000124.<wbr>html</a><br>
Minutes of December 20th call: <a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000127.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>moving/2016-December/000127.<wbr>html</a><br>
Technical governance, including info on Maintainers and sub-trees: <a href="http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/<wbr>contributing/index.html</a> &amp; <a href="http://dpdk.org/dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/dev</a>.<br>
<br>
Reviewed the latest comments on the project charter. These were the significant discussion points:<br>
<br>
Do we need a clause to prevent gold members being outnumbered by silver members on the board?<br>
- There&#39;s already a &lt;TBD&gt; cap on the number of Silver members on the board in clause 3.1.2 ii, so this is already covered. We will need to decide on the &lt;TBD&gt; value during membership discussions.<br>
<br>
Should the Governing Board meetings be public? The reasons given (primarily by Mike and Ed) for not doing this were:<br>
- Legal issues. The GB may need to discuss legal issues which should be kept confidential. Attorneys will also not be willing to give opinions in public meetings. For some companies, their legal counsel will not allow them to participate in public board meetings.<br>
- Potential new members. The GB may need to discuss potential new members who may not have been contacted yet, or who may not want their interest in DPDK made public until their membership is finalized.<br>
- Confidential budget info. Budgets may contain confidential info such as salaries which should not be discussed/disclosed in public.<br>
We agreed to consider this again and agree at the next meeting. If there&#39;s no consensus then we&#39;ll need to vote.<br>
<br>
Should Tech Board meetings should be public?<br>
- Agreed that they should. The charter has been updated to reflect this.<br>
<br>
Should we have a Contributor membership level? Mike elaborated on his previous guidance not to do this:<br>
- It doesn&#39;t serve any purpose. Contributors can be recognized in other ways (on a web page, in an AUTHORS file in the git repo etc.).<br>
- Membership has a legal meaning for the LF and contributors may not meet comply (e.g. a member of an LF project needs to be a member of the LF, but a contributor does not).<br>
- Others felt that this would just add overhead and cause confusion.<br>
Agreed that we don&#39;t see a need for this.<br>
<br>
Do DPDK project members need to be LF members?<br>
- The answer is yes. LF membership rates are documented in the LF bylaws (<a href="https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org/about/bylaws</a>). I&#39;ve added a link to the charter doc. Mike has clarified further in a separate email (<a href="http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-January/000135.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/<wbr>moving/2017-January/000135.<wbr>html</a>).<br>
<br>
Should Gold and Silver members pay the same rate for lab resources?<br>
- Vincent proposed that Gold and Silver members pay the same rate for lab resources. I disagreed with this as it means that Gold members are paying twice - they provide more funding for the project through a higher membership fee, but would then be expected to also pay the same rate as Silver members who&#39;ve contributed less.<br>
- We agreed that we would leave details of costs for different membership levels to be determined by the Governing Board. I&#39;ll update the charter to reflect this.<br>
<br>
Are there, or do there need to be, any DPDK trademarks?<br>
- This discussion was prompted by Vincent&#39;s question on who can use the term DPDK in announcements etc. Nobody on the call was aware of any DPDK trademarks, but that&#39;s not a definitive answer. Agreed that Mike Dolan will consider trademarks in his discussions with legal representatives. If anybody wants to be represented in these discussions and hasn&#39;t already done so, they should provide the name of their legal counsel to Mike.<br>
<br>
Next Meeting:<br>
Tuesday January 17th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We need to agree on whether or not Governing Board meetings should be public, resolve any remaining comments on the charter, and then discuss next steps for identifying membership rates, project members etc.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><table style="font-size:small" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="padding-right:10px" valign="top"><a href="http://www.linaro.org/" title="Linaro" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.mydesignpad.com/email-sig/linaro/linaro-logo-web.png" alt="Linaro" border="0" height="46px" width="72px"></a></td><td valign="top"><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,&#39;Sans Serif&#39;;white-space:nowrap;font-size:9pt;padding-top:0px;color:rgb(87,87,87)" valign="top"><span style="font-weight:bold">François-Frédéric Ozog</span> <span style="color:rgb(161,161,161)">|</span> <i>Director Linaro Networking Group</i></td></tr><tr><td style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,&#39;Sans Serif&#39;;white-space:nowrap;font-size:9pt;padding-top:2px;color:rgb(87,87,87)" valign="top">T: <a href="tel:%2B33.67221.6485" value="+393384075993" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">+33.67221.6485</a><br><a href="mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org" style="color:rgb(87,87,87);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">francois.ozog@linaro.org</a> <span style="color:rgb(161,161,161)">|</span> Skype: ffozog</td></tr></tbody></table></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div></div></div><div><div><br style="font-size:small"></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
  2017-01-12  9:09 ` Francois Ozog
@ 2017-01-12 12:07   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
  2017-01-12 12:14     ` Ed Warnicke
  2017-01-12 12:47     ` Vincent JARDIN
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: O'Driscoll, Tim @ 2017-01-12 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Francois Ozog; +Cc: moving, Dave Neary



> From: Francois Ozog [mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:09 AM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> Cc: moving@dpdk.org; Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> I have missed a couple of calls and did not found notes on the following topic: dpdk.org domain ownership.
>
> I think i has been a discussion topic during Dublin and thought that Dave Neary may have said (unsure) that it was assumed that the dpdk.org domain ownership should be transferred to LF. 
>
> Was there a discussion/conclusion on this ?

Yes, the question was asked during the discussion in Dublin (by Dave I think). This is what Dave captured in his minutes of that discussion:

"When asked about transferring the ownership of the domain name to Linux
Foundation, Vincent reiterated that his main concern was keeping the
project open, and that he did not anticipate that transferring the
domain ownership would be an issue."

Vincent can confirm, but hopefully this means that there's no issue with this.

>
> Cordially,
>
> FF


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
  2017-01-12 12:07   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
@ 2017-01-12 12:14     ` Ed Warnicke
  2017-01-12 15:53       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
  2017-01-12 12:47     ` Vincent JARDIN
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Ed Warnicke @ 2017-01-12 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: O'Driscoll, Tim; +Cc: Francois Ozog, moving, Dave Neary

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1438 bytes --]

Has the question of moving the infra (the actual servers/services behind
dpdk.org) over to LF come up?

Ed

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:07 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
wrote:

>
>
> > From: Francois Ozog [mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:09 AM
> > To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> > Cc: moving@dpdk.org; Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux
> Foundation" call, January 10th
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Thanks for the update.
> >
> > I have missed a couple of calls and did not found notes on the following
> topic: dpdk.org domain ownership.
> >
> > I think i has been a discussion topic during Dublin and thought that
> Dave Neary may have said (unsure) that it was assumed that the dpdk.org
> domain ownership should be transferred to LF.
> >
> > Was there a discussion/conclusion on this ?
>
> Yes, the question was asked during the discussion in Dublin (by Dave I
> think). This is what Dave captured in his minutes of that discussion:
>
> "When asked about transferring the ownership of the domain name to Linux
> Foundation, Vincent reiterated that his main concern was keeping the
> project open, and that he did not anticipate that transferring the
> domain ownership would be an issue."
>
> Vincent can confirm, but hopefully this means that there's no issue with
> this.
>
> >
> > Cordially,
> >
> > FF
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2302 bytes --]

<div dir="ltr">Has the question of moving the infra (the actual servers/services behind <a href="http://dpdk.org">dpdk.org</a>) over to LF come up?<div><br></div><div>Ed</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:07 AM, O&#39;Driscoll, Tim <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com" target="_blank">tim.odriscoll@intel.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
&gt; From: Francois Ozog [mailto:<a href="mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org">francois.ozog@linaro.<wbr>org</a>]<br>
&gt; Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:09 AM<br>
&gt; To: O&#39;Driscoll, Tim &lt;<a href="mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com">tim.odriscoll@intel.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; Cc: <a href="mailto:moving@dpdk.org">moving@dpdk.org</a>; Dave Neary &lt;<a href="mailto:dneary@redhat.com">dneary@redhat.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from &quot;Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation&quot; call, January 10th<br>
<span class="">&gt;<br>
&gt; Hi,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Thanks for the update.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I have missed a couple of calls and did not found notes on the following topic: <a href="http://dpdk.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">dpdk.org</a> domain ownership.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I think i has been a discussion topic during Dublin and thought that Dave Neary may have said (unsure) that it was assumed that the <a href="http://dpdk.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">dpdk.org</a> domain ownership should be transferred to LF. <br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Was there a discussion/conclusion on this ?<br>
<br>
</span>Yes, the question was asked during the discussion in Dublin (by Dave I think). This is what Dave captured in his minutes of that discussion:<br>
<br>
&quot;When asked about transferring the ownership of the domain name to Linux<br>
Foundation, Vincent reiterated that his main concern was keeping the<br>
project open, and that he did not anticipate that transferring the<br>
domain ownership would be an issue.&quot;<br>
<br>
Vincent can confirm, but hopefully this means that there&#39;s no issue with this.<br>
<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Cordially,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; FF<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
  2017-01-12 12:07   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
  2017-01-12 12:14     ` Ed Warnicke
@ 2017-01-12 12:47     ` Vincent JARDIN
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Vincent JARDIN @ 2017-01-12 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Francois Ozog; +Cc: O'Driscoll, Tim, moving, Dave Neary


> Vincent can confirm, but hopefully this means that there's no issue with this.

Clearly, it is a minor topic: it is part of the "moving process". Right 
now, we have to finish the organization of the DPDK, which has been well 
managed by Tim/Intel.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
  2017-01-11 22:16 [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th O'Driscoll, Tim
  2017-01-12  9:09 ` Francois Ozog
@ 2017-01-12 12:55 ` Vincent JARDIN
  2017-01-13  5:12   ` Vincent Jardin
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Vincent JARDIN @ 2017-01-12 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: O'Driscoll, Tim, moving

Le 11/01/2017 à 23:16, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
> If anybody wants to be represented in these discussions and hasn't already done so, they should provide the name of their legal counsel to Mike.

FYI, I did send my name to Mike, I am not a legal counsel.

I hope that it is clear that we are not creating a closed community. We 
all respect and agreed that the technical contributions are properly 
opened, so the other part shall be properly "openly" managed.

Best regards,
   Vincent

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
  2017-01-12 12:14     ` Ed Warnicke
@ 2017-01-12 15:53       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: O'Driscoll, Tim @ 2017-01-12 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ed Warnicke; +Cc: Francois Ozog, moving, Dave Neary

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2027 bytes --]

Not so far, no. That’s another implementation detail that we’ll need to look into.


Tim

From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 12:15 PM
To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Cc: Francois Ozog <francois.ozog@linaro.org>; moving@dpdk.org; Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th

Has the question of moving the infra (the actual servers/services behind dpdk.org<http://dpdk.org>) over to LF come up?

Ed

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:07 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>> wrote:


> From: Francois Ozog [mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org<mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org>]
> Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:09 AM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>>
> Cc: moving@dpdk.org<mailto:moving@dpdk.org>; Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com<mailto:dneary@redhat.com>>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the update.
>
> I have missed a couple of calls and did not found notes on the following topic: dpdk.org<http://dpdk.org> domain ownership.
>
> I think i has been a discussion topic during Dublin and thought that Dave Neary may have said (unsure) that it was assumed that the dpdk.org<http://dpdk.org> domain ownership should be transferred to LF.
>
> Was there a discussion/conclusion on this ?

Yes, the question was asked during the discussion in Dublin (by Dave I think). This is what Dave captured in his minutes of that discussion:

"When asked about transferring the ownership of the domain name to Linux
Foundation, Vincent reiterated that his main concern was keeping the
project open, and that he did not anticipate that transferring the
domain ownership would be an issue."

Vincent can confirm, but hopefully this means that there's no issue with this.

>
> Cordially,
>
> FF


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5810 bytes --]

<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
	{font-family:"Cambria Math";
	panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
	{font-family:Calibri;
	panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{mso-style-priority:99;
	color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
	color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
	{mso-style-type:export-only;
	font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
	{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Not so far, no. That’s another implementation detail that we’ll need to look into.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Tim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_____replyseparator"></a><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quot;Calibri&quot;,sans-serif"> Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, January 12, 2017 12:15 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> O'Driscoll, Tim &lt;tim.odriscoll@intel.com&gt;<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Francois Ozog &lt;francois.ozog@linaro.org&gt;; moving@dpdk.org; Dave Neary &lt;dneary@redhat.com&gt;<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from &quot;Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation&quot; call, January 10th<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Has the question of moving the infra (the actual servers/services behind
<a href="http://dpdk.org">dpdk.org</a>) over to LF come up?<span style="color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ed<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 5:07 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim &lt;<a href="mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com" target="_blank">tim.odriscoll@intel.com</a>&gt; wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
<br>
&gt; From: Francois Ozog [mailto:<a href="mailto:francois.ozog@linaro.org">francois.ozog@linaro.org</a>]<br>
&gt; Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 9:09 AM<br>
&gt; To: O'Driscoll, Tim &lt;<a href="mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com">tim.odriscoll@intel.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; Cc: <a href="mailto:moving@dpdk.org">moving@dpdk.org</a>; Dave Neary &lt;<a href="mailto:dneary@redhat.com">dneary@redhat.com</a>&gt;<br>
&gt; Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from &quot;Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation&quot; call, January 10th<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Hi,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Thanks for the update.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I have missed a couple of calls and did not found notes on the following topic:
<a href="http://dpdk.org" target="_blank">dpdk.org</a> domain ownership.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I think i has been a discussion topic during Dublin and thought that Dave Neary may have said (unsure) that it was assumed that the
<a href="http://dpdk.org" target="_blank">dpdk.org</a> domain ownership should be transferred to LF.&nbsp;<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Was there a discussion/conclusion on this ?<br>
<br>
Yes, the question was asked during the discussion in Dublin (by Dave I think). This is what Dave captured in his minutes of that discussion:<br>
<br>
&quot;When asked about transferring the ownership of the domain name to Linux<br>
Foundation, Vincent reiterated that his main concern was keeping the<br>
project open, and that he did not anticipate that transferring the<br>
domain ownership would be an issue.&quot;<br>
<br>
Vincent can confirm, but hopefully this means that there's no issue with this.<br>
<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Cordially,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; FF<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
  2017-01-12 12:55 ` Vincent JARDIN
@ 2017-01-13  5:12   ` Vincent Jardin
  2017-01-17 14:19     ` Vincent JARDIN
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Vincent Jardin @ 2017-01-13  5:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: O'Driscoll, Tim, moving

what will the NDA binding be between people attending such discussion on 
the DPDK ?


Le 12 janvier 2017 13:55:05 Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com> a écrit :

> Le 11/01/2017 à 23:16, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
>> If anybody wants to be represented in these discussions and hasn't already 
>> done so, they should provide the name of their legal counsel to Mike.
>
> FYI, I did send my name to Mike, I am not a legal counsel.
>
> I hope that it is clear that we are not creating a closed community. We
> all respect and agreed that the technical contributions are properly
> opened, so the other part shall be properly "openly" managed.
>
> Best regards,
>    Vincent

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

* Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
  2017-01-13  5:12   ` Vincent Jardin
@ 2017-01-17 14:19     ` Vincent JARDIN
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Vincent JARDIN @ 2017-01-17 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: moving; +Cc: O'Driscoll, Tim

Le 13/01/2017 à 06:12, Vincent Jardin a écrit :
> what will the NDA binding be between people attending such discussion on
> the DPDK ?

I have not seen any updates/comments about it.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread

end of thread, back to index

Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-01-11 22:16 [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th O'Driscoll, Tim
2017-01-12  9:09 ` Francois Ozog
2017-01-12 12:07   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2017-01-12 12:14     ` Ed Warnicke
2017-01-12 15:53       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2017-01-12 12:47     ` Vincent JARDIN
2017-01-12 12:55 ` Vincent JARDIN
2017-01-13  5:12   ` Vincent Jardin
2017-01-17 14:19     ` Vincent JARDIN

DPDK community structure changes

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving/0 moving/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 moving moving/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving \
		moving@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index moving


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.moving


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox