DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / Atom feed
* [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 15th
@ 2016-11-16 13:48 O'Driscoll, Tim
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: O'Driscoll, Tim @ 2016-11-16 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: moving

Here are my notes from yesterday's call. Please feel free to correct any errors or to add additional details.

Attendees: Chloe Ma, Dave Neary (Red Hat), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), Jerin Jacob (Cavium), John Bromhead (Cavium), Kevin Deierling (Mellanox), Keith Wiles (Intel), Matt Spencer (ARM), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Shreyansh Jain (NXP), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Tobias Lindquist (Ericsson), Vincent Jardin (6WIND). Note that there may have been others, but as people joined at different times it was difficult to keep track.

Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things:
Project Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs/edit
Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html
Minutes of October 31st call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000031.html
Minutes of November 8th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000058.html
Current technical governance, including composition of the Tech Board: http://dpdk.org/dev

1. Mission Statement
Discussed whether more detail is required or if it should be kept simple and high level as in other LF project charters. Agreed that the governance structure (Technical Board/TSC, Governing Board etc.) will be handled in later sections of the doc so it does not need to be covered here. Mission Statement will remain as just a high level statement of project goals.

2. Sub-Projects
Discussion was on the items labeled as "Old". These will no longer be developed or maintained, but may still be useful as examples. Agreed that "Deprecated" is a better term than old. I'll update the charter to reflect this.

3. Membership
Matt proposed adding contributors as a member level to reinforce the fact that anybody can contribute. Others (Dave, Keith, Vincent) felt that this was over-complicating things, and the fact that anybody can contribute is already specified elsewhere in the doc.

Agreed that we need to consider Membership and the Governing Board together as they're closely linked. Will need to revisit this section when we've finalized section 4.

4. Governing Board
Vincent proposed renaming this to remove the term "Governing". We didn't reach a conclusion as we moved on to other topics, but the options would be:
a. Governing Board. This is consistent with terminology used in other LF projects.
b. DPDK Board. This is a bit more neutral and doesn't imply that the board governs the technical aspects of the project.
c. DPDK Marketing & CI Board. This is more specific, but still isn't completely clear as the board only manages the budget not all aspects of CI.
Rather than take up time at future meetings on this I'll start a separate thread on the moving list and we'll see if we can reach a consensus that way.

Discussed the scope of the board and whether it should define a set of rules or guidelines that the Tech Board will be responsible for implementing. This would include things like the requirement for multi-architecture support, quality expectations etc. Some were in favour of this (Francois-Frederic, Matt), others were against this as they felt that this should be part of the technical governance (me, Vincent, Jan).
Agreed that we need to review both the scope of the board and the Tech Board/TSC together in order to reach a conclusion on this. Thomas has put some initial text into the charter on technical governance which others should review and comment on. We'll review both at next week's meeting and try to finalise these.

5. Scope
We have a lot of new people contributing to this discussion, which is great, but it does mean that we tend to repeat things that we've discussed previously, and that new topics are frequently introduced. That's OK, but we do need to balance that against the need to make progress and conclude the transition to LF in a timely manner.
To help with this, people should review the minutes of previous discussions and the current technical governance structure (links are at the top of this email). We'll also try to resolve some of the smaller issues on the moving@dpdk.org mailing list so that we don't need to take up time in the meetings on them.

Next Meeting:
Tuesday November 22nd at 3pm GMT/4pm CET/10am EST/7am PST). Agenda is to review the scope of the Governing Board and Technical Board and agree on the separation of responsibilities between them. If we have time, we'll continue to review the comments on other sections of the project charter. 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, back to index

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-11-16 13:48 [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 15th O'Driscoll, Tim

DPDK community structure changes

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving/0 moving/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 moving moving/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving \
		moving@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index moving


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.moving


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox