From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18EEF100F for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 12:59:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2016 04:59:45 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,579,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="896395490" Received: from irsmsx101.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.153]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Nov 2016 04:59:44 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.210]) by IRSMSX101.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.153]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:59:43 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Call with Linux Foundation Thread-Index: AdIwP/gosiOlVGTzSjGNr3+iisDv3gD9tL3w Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 11:59:42 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760AAD1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760884F@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760884F@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMzhhNTNiMGItNjYwNC00ZWVmLThhZWMtZDRmN2Y5NjZmM2FkIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IjZWRGJHQTlBVDFSUVRmZUVXWk9OVkNWUHAzNnIwVmNOSlZSZ1prZEZYR0k9In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Call with 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: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 11:59:46 -0000 Here are my notes from yesterday's call. Please feel free to correct any er= rors 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), Mat= t Spencer (ARM), Mike Dolan (Linux Foundation), Raghu Madabushi (Linux Foun= dation), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6= WIND). Note that there may have been others, but as people joined at differ= ent times it was difficult to keep track. Mike Dolan outlined the requirements from the Linux Foundation for moving D= PDK: 1. A project charter which describes how decisions are made, who can make t= hem, IP policy etc. If we're raising funding, then additional detail will n= eed to be added to the charter to describe how this budget is raised (membe= rship 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.opencont= ainers.org/about/governance - Open vSwitch (no membership/funding model): http://openvswitch.org/charte= r/charter.pdf 2. LF ownership of core community assets. This would include the logo (crea= ted by Intel, we can transfer ownership to the LF), domain name (Vincent co= nfirmed in Dublin that transferring ownership of this would not a be proble= m), 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 bud= get details afterwards, as long as we have the necessary items in the chart= er 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 ce= ntralized 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 monito= r any performance gains or degradations is a priority. This also needs furt= her investigation to determine what performance tests should be run, as pat= ches may improve performance in some scenarios but degrade performance in o= thers. 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 ev= ent 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 mont= hs 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 perspe= ctive as the amount and timing is more predictable. Some event costs can also be covered by charging a registration fee. This w= ill 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 companie= s to contribute. This will need to be documented in the project charter. The draft budget that was created with the Linux Foundation earlier this ye= ar is still available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-3686Xb_j= f4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=3D302618256. Raghu manages budg= ets from the LF side. I'll work with him to update this and we can review t= his at the next meeting. Technical Governance: There was some discussion on the mailing list on composition of the Tech Bo= ard/TSC. Most people felt that the current Tech Board has the right members= hip 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 develo= pers who contribute patches, but ARM would like to have a software architec= t 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 avoi= d 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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):=A0https://www.opencontainers.org/about/governance > - Open vSwitch (no membership/funding model): Attached. >=20 > 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