From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EEB5678 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:50:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2016 08:50:35 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,500,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="32079841" Received: from irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.25]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2016 08:50:35 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.210]) by irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.25]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:50:34 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Board Names Thread-Index: AdJAI7GZppqszIzhS3CxhXhg7tId+w== Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:50:33 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676143A8@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: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMzg0ODY1NmUtMmIzMS00ODEwLWI4ZTctMWM5Y2MyZjg5ZTE3IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJPOW9SbFcwemVHQTJ3cFwvS0VSSVdmOENndWtNc2wwck9walh1cGVBb0F6UT0ifQ== 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] Board Names 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 16:50:38 -0000 One thing that came up during yesterday's call that we didn't reach a concl= usion on was names for our board and tech board. Rather than take up time o= n this during the weekly calls, perhaps we can agree via email. For the board itself, there are several options including: 1.a Governing Board. This is frequently used in other LF projects. 1.b Board of Directors. This is also frequently used in other LF projects. 1.c DPDK Board. This is a bit more neutral and doesn't imply that the board= governs the technical aspects of the project. 1.d DPDK Marketing & CI Board. This is more specific, but is a bit misleadi= ng as the board only manages the budget for CI, not all aspects of CI. For the technical board, the options include: 2.a Technical Board. This is the current name. 2.b Technical Steering Committee. This is the name typically used on other = LF projects. For reference, here's the naming that some other LF projects use: FD.io (https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/exhibit_a_-_fd.io_p= roject_by-laws.pdf): Board of Directors, Technical Steering Committee IOVisor (https://www.iovisor.org/about/governance): Governing Board, Techni= cal Steering Committee OVS (http://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf): (no board because there's= no budget), Technical Steering Committee ODL (https://www.opendaylight.org/bylaws): Board, Technical Steering Commit= tee OPNFV (https://www.opnfv.org/about/governance): Board of Directors, Technic= al Steering Committee What do people think? My vote would be 1.a and 2.b, but I'm not overly conc= erned with names as long as we clearly define the scope of each. Tim