From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 806D95582; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:23:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2016 10:23:27 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,462,1473145200"; d="scan'208,217";a="29045901" Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.96]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2016 10:23:25 -0800 Received: from irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.3) by IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:23:24 +0000 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.210]) by irsmsx155.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.14.176]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:23:24 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Matt Spencer , Vincent JARDIN , "moving@dpdk.org" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter Thread-Index: AQHSOeyHMrYz5ut6lkeNDGhijbv/lqDPZVXQ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:23:24 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760EAF1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760E51D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <213281a6-6b14-f067-dca0-4b442557b05e@6wind.com>, <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760E5AC@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMmMwYzY4YjMtMGY3ZS00MWQ2LTgwMGItZWUyNDkyZWEyYzRlIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IkVSY1NsZjJieVgwTmZZdmdBZ05Ba0NQSkVUVWhRMmhmcjJ5OUFtVVFhQ289In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760EAF1IRSMSX108gercor_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] 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 18:23:29 -0000 --_000_26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760EAF1IRSMSX108gercor_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agreed. I think we should use next week's meeting to walk through the docum= ent, 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 share= d lab and a lower level contribution for marketing purposes. Tim From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:18 PM To: O'Driscoll, Tim ; Vincent JARDIN ; moving@dpdk.org Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter I think we need a discussion about the levels of membership - possibly at n= ext 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 t= his at next weeks meeting. Matt ________________________________ From: moving > on b= ehalf of O'Driscoll, Tim > 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 membe= rship, 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 con= tributes at the same rate or if we support multiple levels. So, for now, th= e text on having two levels is just an example to show what a membership mo= del 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 t= he OVS charter (http://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf) even though the= y have 0 budget. I assumed it's standard text for the LF. I'm sure Mike Dol= an can clarify. > > Please, explain why you did change it? > > Thank you, > Vincent IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confid= ential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, p= lease 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. --_000_26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760EAF1IRSMSX108gercor_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Agreed. I think we should use next we= ek’s meeting to walk through the document, discuss the comments, and = agree on the changes.

 

As I said before, the two-level struc= ture that’s in there at the moment is a placeholder, but it does allo= w for one level of contribution to the shared lab and a lower level contribution for marketing purposes.

 


Tim

&nbs= p;

From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:18 PM
To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Vincent JARDIN = <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>; moving@dpdk.org
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter

 

I= think we need a discussion about the levels of membership - possibly at ne= xt weeks meeting?

<= o:p> 

M= y feeling is that we need more than one level

&= nbsp; - One to enable contribution of hardware to the lab, as the lab will = add cost to the overall project budget

&= nbsp; - A second to enable contribution to the marketing aspects of the pro= ject and to allow association for marketing purposes

<= o:p> 

C= alling these Gold and Silver is fine with me, but as I say, lets discuss th= is at next weeks meeting.

<= o:p> 

M= att


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.o= rg
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter
<= o:p>

 


> -----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 writte= n
> 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 membe= rship, 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 con= tributes at the same rate or if we support multiple levels. So, for now, th= e text on having two levels is just an example to show what a membership mo= del 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 t= he 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 th= e intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not discl= ose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Th= ank you.

--_000_26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760EAF1IRSMSX108gercor_--