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 7C5A1558D for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 14:48:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2016 05:48:04 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,500,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="31546830" Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.96]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2016 05:48:03 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.210]) by IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.12.108]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:48:02 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 15th Thread-Index: AdI//4zpPoGVG12dQe6qawutK0Qr1Q== Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:48:02 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67614193@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: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMjdiNjE5ZTMtYzNlYy00N2Q2LWE2Y2MtNzcyZmFlZDFiMWNiIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJZSzJsQ2UrZ0Z4QWtYMjdTUlNSOE9jelRyV2FOeDJFb2pHNXM1cVZ6cW00PSJ9 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: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 15th 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: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 13:48:22 -0000 Here are my notes from yesterday's call. Please feel free to correct any er= rors 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 J= acob (Cavium), John Bromhead (Cavium), Kevin Deierling (Mellanox), Keith Wi= les (Intel), Matt Spencer (ARM), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Shreyansh Jain (NXP= ), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Tobias Lindquist (Erics= son), 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-e6NQt3OV= zAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs/edit Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: http://dpdk.org/ml/arch= ives/dev/2016-October/049259.html Minutes of October 31st call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-Novem= ber/000031.html Minutes of November 8th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-Novem= ber/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 an= d high level as in other LF project charters. Agreed that the governance st= ructure (Technical Board/TSC, Governing Board etc.) will be handled in late= r sections of the doc so it does not need to be covered here. Mission State= ment 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 devel= oped or maintained, but may still be useful as examples. Agreed that "Depre= cated" 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 t= hat anybody can contribute. Others (Dave, Keith, Vincent) felt that this wa= s over-complicating things, and the fact that anybody can contribute is alr= eady 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 fi= nalized section 4. 4. Governing Board Vincent proposed renaming this to remove the term "Governing". We didn't re= ach 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 pr= ojects. 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 comple= tely 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 t= hread 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 rule= s or guidelines that the Tech Board will be responsible for implementing. T= his would include things like the requirement for multi-architecture suppor= t, 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 Boar= d/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 r= eview and comment on. We'll review both at next week's meeting and try to f= inalise 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 previ= ously, 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 tra= nsition 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 th= is email). We'll also try to resolve some of the smaller issues on the movi= ng@dpdk.org mailing list so that we don't need to take up time in the meeti= ngs on them. Next Meeting: Tuesday November 22nd at 3pm GMT/4pm CET/10am EST/7am PST). Agenda is to re= view the scope of the Governing Board and Technical Board and agree on the = separation of responsibilities between them. If we have time, we'll continu= e to review the comments on other sections of the project charter.=20