From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E7B68D1 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 16:31:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2016 07:31:28 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,542,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="23077251" Received: from irsmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.99]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2016 07:31:27 -0700 Received: from irsmsx111.ger.corp.intel.com (10.108.20.4) by IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.99) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:31:27 +0100 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.210]) by irsmsx111.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.108.20.4]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:31:27 +0100 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation Thread-Index: AdIi0Am9XkA5c/YfTUiuKkI+LzQJygIyx0sAAD2x5IAAXAE34A== Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:31:26 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67606952@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <580A1F94.9080304@redhat.com> <16801110.dITe5Z9CHy@xps13> In-Reply-To: <16801110.dITe5Z9CHy@xps13> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNGRhNTdmNmUtMDg2Mi00YjM1LTk5NDktOTViODllZGI1ZTFiIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6InJEVEw1cmJsSW1FWENPU3hjT3RzVlhETWpuYXJBUmUzUWVMdndVQ2M4YUU9In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation 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: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:31:30 -0000 Thanks for the summary Dave. It looks good to me. As Thomas suggested, I've dropped the dev and users mailing lists and just = posted this to moving@dpdk.org. I assume those who are interested have subs= cribed by now. If we're to meet our target of having a budget proposal in 4 weeks we'll ne= ed to have regular meetings with the LF. I'll contact Mike Dolan and arrang= e a time for a kick-off meeting either later this week or early next week. =09 In the meantime, it would be useful for people to review the budget proposa= l that we created with LF earlier this year (the "Baseline" column in https= ://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnX= cLg/edit#gid=3D302618256) and think about what should be added/removed. In = that proposal we had $0 for IT infrastructure, but at last week's discussio= n there was strong interest in having support for CI. That either means inc= reasing the overall budget requirement, or else re-prioritising other items= . Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas > Monjalon > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 8:27 PM > To: moving@dpdk.org > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; users@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux > Foundation >=20 > Hi, > Thanks Dave for the report. >=20 > I suggest to continue on the new mailing list: > moving@dpdk.org > Please register if you are interested in the structure move: > http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/moving >=20 >=20 > 2016-10-21 15:00, Dave Neary: > > Hi all, > > > > We had a great session yesterday on this topic, I took some notes - > does > > anyone who was there have any corrections, or anyone who was not have > > any comments? > > > > Thanks, > > Dave. > > > > Tim led the discussion, and started by outlining that he saw there > were > > 3 different questions which we should treat independently: > > > > 1. Is there a benefit to moving DPDK to a foundation? > > 2. If the answer is yes: there are two options currently proposed - a > > low overhead, independent project under the Linux Foundation (LF > Lite), > > or joining fd.io as a sub-project. Which one of these is preferable, > or > > is there another option to consider? > > 3. Are there any related changes we should consider in technical > > infrastructure and project governance? > > > > I outlined some advantages I see to the Linux Foundation: > > * Pool resources for events > > * Provides some legal foresight > > * LF standing behind a project gives some companies assurances that > > there is good, open technical governance and a level playing field for > > participants > > > > Stephen Hemminger asked if there was a sponsorship requirement. Tim > > responded that it is possible to do what Open vSwitch has done, and > have > > no membership funding requirement. What that means is that any funds > the > > project community wants to spend needs to be budgeted ad hoc. > > > > A number of others (Shreyansh Jain, Matt Spencer) said they would like > > to see a formal model for non-technical engagement, legal protection > for > > patent and copyright, and more clarity on the technical governance. > > > > Vincent Jardin said that whatever happens, it is vital that DPDK > remain > > an open, community-run project. > > > > A number of people expressed interest in the change, but could not > > commit to funding. > > > > Jerome Tollet said that he felt it was important to have better test > and > > CI infrastructure, and that these cost money. He proposed that since > > fd.io already has infrastructure and a lab, that this would be an > > affordable option for doing this. > > > > Vincent and Thomas Monjalon suggested that distributed testing was a > > better option - creating an opportunity for different people to send > > test results to a central gathering point. Thomas mentioned that > > Patchwork has a feature which allows aggregation of test results for > > specific patches now. > > > > Tim asked if there was agreement on a move, and there was no > opposition. > > Vincent suggested opening a call for proposals to have a wider range > of > > choices than LF Lite or fd.io. Jim St. Leger said we have already had > a > > group who evaluated options and made a proposal, and we should not re- > do > > the process. > > > > Jerome recommended that we focus on requirements and criteria for > > determining the choice: timing, governance requirements, budget, and > > hardware/infrastructure requirements. Keith Wiles suggested that there > > was a need for some budgetary requirement to show commitment of > > participating companies. > > > > 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. > > > > Moving on to question 2: > > > > I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the > > project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset > > changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io, OVS, and > > OPNFV to do testing of DPDK. > > > > Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a > preference > > for a stand-alone lightweight project - one concern voiced was that > > there is a potential perception issue with fd.io too. > > > > Maciek K and Jerome encouraged everyone not to underestimate the > > difficulty in setting up good CI and testing processes. > > > > To close out the meeting, Tim summarised the consensus decisions: > > > > * We agreed to move to a foundation > > * A group will work on re-doing a budget proposal with the Linux > > Foundation - target of 4 weeks to come up with a budget proposal for > the > > community > > * There is a preference for an independent project rather than being a > > sub-project > > > > Budget group: > > * Matt Spencer, ARM > > * Jerome Tollet, Cisco > > * Ed Warnicke, Cisco > > * Shreyansh Jain, NXP > > * Dave Neary, Red Hat > > * Jan Blunk, Brocade > > * Vincent Jardin, 6WIND > > * Thomas Monjalon, 6WIND > > * Tim O'Driscoll, Intel > > * Francois Ozog, Linaro > > * John Bromhead (sp?), Cavium