Agreed. I think we should use next week’s meeting to walk through the document, discuss the comments, and agree on the changes.
As I said before, the two-level structure that’s in there at the moment is a placeholder, but it does allow for one level of contribution to the shared lab and
a lower level contribution for marketing purposes.
Tim
I think we need a discussion about the levels of membership - possibly at next weeks meeting?
My feeling is that we need more than one level
- One to enable contribution of hardware to the lab, as the lab will add cost to the overall project budget
- A second to enable contribution to the marketing aspects of the project and to allow association for marketing purposes
Calling these Gold and Silver is fine with me, but as I say, lets discuss this at next weeks meeting.
Matt
From: moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org>
on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Sent: 08 November 2016 03:57:36
To: Vincent JARDIN; moving@dpdk.org
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:41 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
>
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for your draft, but it is not a good proposal. It is not written
> in the spirit that we have discussed in Dublin:
> - you create the status of "Gold" members that we do not want from
> Linux Foundation,
As I said in the email, I put in two levels of membership as a placeholder. The first thing we need to decide is if we want to have a budget and membership, or if we want the OVS model with 0 budget and no membership. We can discuss that at today's meeting.
If we do want a membership model then we'll need to decide if everybody contributes at the same rate or if we support multiple levels. So, for now, the text on having two levels is just an example to show what a membership model might look like.
> - you start with "DPDK's first $1,000,000", it is far from the $O
> that we agreed based on OVS model.
That's just standard text that I see in all the LF charters. It's even in the OVS charter (http://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf) even though they have 0 budget. I assumed it's standard text for
the LF. I'm sure Mike Dolan can clarify.
>
> Please, explain why you did change it?
>
> Thank you,
> Vincent
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person,
use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.