From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F455582 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:16:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2016 10:16:16 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,462,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="189106452" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2016 10:16:14 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.210]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:15:05 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Draft Project Charter Thread-Index: AdI5pkYVVUeHBQEwQmOpxJKoL3mb+AARRHXA Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:15:04 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760EA61@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760E51D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760E51D@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: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZjNiMjE2YjAtNzlhYy00ODg2LWI4NGItZWQ2YzUyNzY2ZTMxIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IjRzcGUwWDVcL2RoS0w1VkpablBTalV5V2E5U2lYSForXC93d3RGNEtsRTAxYz0ifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter 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, 08 Nov 2016 18:16:18 -0000 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 an= d set it up in a new location: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3= arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs/edit?usp=3Dsharing. Please use this ver= sion from now on. The good news is that there's now public access so anybody can view and com= ment. 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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=3Dsharing (you'll need to > submit an access request the first time you try to open it). >=20 > A lot of it is fairly generic and copied from other charters, but there > are some things to consider: >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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). >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 >=20 > Tim