Re: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter

["O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>]

Internal restrictions on Google docs meant that there was no way for me to give public access to the draft charter. So, Mike Dolan has taken a copy and set it up in a new location: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs/edit?usp=sharing. Please use this version from now on.

The good news is that there's now public access so anybody can view and comment.

The bad news is that existing comments have not been preserved. I think it was only Vincent, Matt and I that had made comments so far. I'll leave the old version in place so we can still see the history, but Vincent and Matt should feel free to comment again on the new version.

Apologies for the inconvenience.


Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll,
> Tim
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 10:55 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
> 
> I created a draft DPDK Project Charter based on the example charters
> from other projects that Mike Dolan provided. It's far from complete,
> but there should be enough there for people to review and comment.
> 
> I've sent invites via Google docs to those who expressed an interest in
> working on the move to the Linux Foundation and who have email addresses
> that Google accepts (I think it rejects some people because Intel has
> configured Google docs to only allow sharing with Google accounts). I've
> attached a PDF for anybody else who wants to review. Alternatively you
> can sign up for a Google account at:
> https://accounts.google.com/signupwithoutgmail and then use the
> following link: https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1oCJMX-
> gA9LdubA40t-F31ntb7SeDBWCwDfTnkbl9tFM/edit?usp=sharing (you'll need to
> submit an access request the first time you try to open it).
> 
> A lot of it is fairly generic and copied from other charters, but there
> are some things to consider:
> 
> 1. I've left the project Mission very broad because that seems to be the
> trend in other project charters. It's really just a high level statement
> of intent for the project.
> 
> 2. I've assumed for now that we'll have two membership levels, although
> we'll need to decide that when we have a better idea of budget and
> likely members. For now, this is really just a placeholder. I did add
> some thoughts on what the benefits of the two tiers would be. It's worth
> reviewing and considering those. The way it's written at the moment,
> those who contribute to the budget have a say in how that budget is
> spent, and that say is proportional to the size of contribution (so
> higher tier members get a bigger say than lower tier members). It is
> important to emphasise that this doesn't affect the technical aspects of
> the project in any way - anybody can still contribute, become a
> maintainer, become a Tech Board member etc.
> 
> 3. Besides DPDK we have a few sub-projects that are also hosted on
> dpdk.org. These are identified in section 2. There needs to be a
> mechanism for reviewing any new sub-projects that are proposed (e.g. if
> somebody wants to add another packet generator to DPDK). At the moment,
> I've specified that the Governing Board reviews new projects to make
> sure that they're consistent with the project mission, and that the
> project proposal includes a reasonable technical governance structure
> (i.e. maintainers/committers have been identified etc.). Alternatively,
> we could have the existing Tech Board review, but the scope of that
> board is just for DPDK (as defined at http://dpdk.org/dev#board) and it
> doesn't cover the other sub-projects like SPP, Pktgen, DTS etc. If we
> want to expand its scope then the composition would need to be changed
> to be more inclusive of other projects, which would reduce its focus on
> DPDK. Another option would be to have a higher level TSC like FD.io
> does, but that seems like too much overhead for DPDK. In all
> probability, new projects will be rare anyway (SPP is the only recent
> one).
> 
> 4. The Technical Governance section is just an outline and needs to be
> populated. I think this should be done not just for DPDK but for the
> other projects as well, even though they're smaller.
> 
> 5. The IP Policy specifies at the moment that everything is 3-clause BSD
> which isn't correct. It needs to be updated to reflect the parts of DPDK
> that use other licenses.
> 
> People can add comments directly to the document, or else comment via
> email on the moving@dpdk.org
> list. If there are any areas where we don't have a consensus then we'll
> discuss and agree during our weekly meetings.
> 
> 
> Tim