* Re: [dpdk-moving] Call with Linux Foundation
2016-10-27 10:52 [dpdk-moving] Call with Linux Foundation O'Driscoll, Tim
@ 2016-11-01 11:59 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: O'Driscoll, Tim @ 2016-11-01 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: moving
Here are my notes from yesterday's call. Please feel free to correct any errors or to add additional details.
Attendees: Dave Neary (Red Hat), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jerin Jacob (Cavium), Jim St. Leger (Intel), John Bromhead (Cavium), John McNamara (Intel), Matt Spencer (ARM), Mike Dolan (Linux Foundation), Raghu Madabushi (Linux Foundation), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND). Note that there may have been others, but as people joined at different times it was difficult to keep track.
Mike Dolan outlined the requirements from the Linux Foundation for moving DPDK:
1. A project charter which describes how decisions are made, who can make them, IP policy etc. If we're raising funding, then additional detail will need to be added to the charter to describe how this budget is raised (membership levels) and managed (e.g. via governing board). Example charters for other projects are:
- Hyperledger (2-tier membership model): https://www.hyperledger.org/about/charter
- Open Container Initiative (1-tier membership model): https://www.opencontainers.org/about/governance
- Open vSwitch (no membership/funding model): http://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf
2. LF ownership of core community assets. This would include the logo (created by Intel, we can transfer ownership to the LF), domain name (Vincent confirmed in Dublin that transferring ownership of this would not a be problem), trademarks (nobody is aware of any) etc.
Having the budget finalized is not a requirement for launching the project under the Linux Foundation. We can move the project first and then work budget details afterwards, as long as we have the necessary items in the charter to describe how the budget will be managed.
CI:
There was agreement that better CI is a priority but that it needs further investigation to determine the best way to do it. CI does not have to be centralized and can be distributed using the infrastructure that many vendors already have in place.
We also agreed that having public performance measurements so we can monitor any performance gains or degradations is a priority. This also needs further investigation to determine what performance tests should be run, as patches may improve performance in some scenarios but degrade performance in others.
Many test reports are already sent to the test-report@dpdk.org mailing list but this isn't widely known. We need to make these more visible.
The Intel validation team are investigating what can be done for public CI and performance testing and will post some thoughts on the moving@dpdk.org mailing list to start some discussion on this.
Events:
We discussed whether we need a project budget to cover events or if each event can be funded individually via sponsorship. The typical planning cycle for our events in ~6 months, so we'd need to have sponsorship agreed 6 months in advance to make sure we could cover costs. Some felt that funding via a membership model would be easier to manage from a budget planning perspective as the amount and timing is more predictable.
Some event costs can also be covered by charging a registration fee. This will also help to reduce the number of people who register but don't attend.
We discussed co-locating future events with other networking events such as the Open Networking Summit. We could co-locate with different events over time to maximize exposure of DPDK.
Budget:
We still need to finalise details on CI infrastructure and events, but the consensus was that we do need a project budget which will mean that we will need to look for membership contributions to DPDK.
In parallel with this, we need to document the benefits that members would get in return for their contributions, so there's an incentive for companies to contribute. This will need to be documented in the project charter.
The draft budget that was created with the Linux Foundation earlier this year is still available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=302618256. Raghu manages budgets from the LF side. I'll work with him to update this and we can review this at the next meeting.
Technical Governance:
There was some discussion on the mailing list on composition of the Tech Board/TSC. Most people felt that the current Tech Board has the right membership and doesn't need to change.
Matt said that it's difficult for ARM to contribute more as they don't have any representation. The Tech Board composition is based on software developers who contribute patches, but ARM would like to have a software architect involved to help guide future direction of the project.
Next Meeting:
We proposed 1 hour earlier (4pm GMT/5pm CET/11am EST/8am EST) next Tuesday (Nov 8th). I did get one request to move this another hour earlier. To avoid this getting lost at the end of a long email, I'll post a separate thread specifically on this.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll,
> Tim
> Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2016 11:53 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-moving] Call with Linux Foundation
>
> I sent a meeting invite to those who volunteered to work on this during
> our discussion in Dublin, but I wanted to post this on the
> moving@dpdk.org list as well in case others want to join.
>
> I checked with Mike Dolan yesterday, and we can have an initial call
> with the Linux Foundation to discuss moving DPDK on Monday at 10:00
> PST/13:00 EST/17:00 GMT/18:00 CET. Mike will describe the LF
> requirements for moving the project, and we can discuss what we need to
> do to satisfy those requirements.
>
> I know the time isn't ideal, especially as Monday is a holiday in the UK
> and Ireland. However, Tuesday is a holiday in much of central Europe,
> Tuesday-Thursday is typically the prime time for other meetings, and we
> have a bit of momentum now so we want to do this as soon as possible. At
> Monday's meeting we'll agree a time for a regular weekly meeting on
> this. I'll also send a summary to moving@dpdk.org afterwards for the
> benefit of anybody who can't make it.
>
> Mike provided some examples of project charters that other projects have
> created. It would be good for people to review these in advance of the
> meeting.
> - Hyperledger (2-tier membership model):
> https://www.hyperledger.org/about/charter
> - Open Container Initiative (1-tier membership
> model): https://www.opencontainers.org/about/governance
> - Open vSwitch (no membership/funding model): Attached.
>
> Access numbers for the call are:
> France: +33 1588 77298
> UK: +44 179340 2663
> USA: +1 916 356 2663
> Bridge Number: 5
> Conference ID: 431918074
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread