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 58BD72BA7 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:15:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2016 04:15:03 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,543,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="905084259" Received: from irsmsx151.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.59]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2016 04:15:02 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.145]) by IRSMSX151.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.16]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:15:01 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 22nd Thread-Index: AdJGS/KCgzoSF/eHSV6W08FJ3GD5uQ== Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:15:01 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623D5D@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: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZTAyMDVmZDEtMTViOC00ZDBiLTgxYzktMmFmOGUyZmRjZTdmIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJsaUlDMmhLNG9wQVZoQ205dEFSMG45OTVKa01vN3c4TmtZQjU1TVwvZ0tUaz0ifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] 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 22nd 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: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:15:04 -0000 Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct any erro= rs or to add additional details. Attendees: Bruce Richardson (Intel), Dave Neary (Red Hat), Ed Warnicke (Cis= co), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Greg Curran (Intel), Hemant Agrawal (= NXP), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jerin Jacob (Cavium), Jim St. Leger (Intel), Jo= hn Bromhead (Cavium), John McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Matt Spen= cer (ARM), Mike Dolan (Linux Foundation), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Shreyansh = Jain (NXP), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin= (6WIND), Yoni Luzon (Mellanox). 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 Minutes of November 15th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-Nove= mber/000061.html Current technical governance, including composition of the Tech Board: http= ://dpdk.org/dev 1. Discussed scope of Technical Board (TB) and Governing Board (GB), as def= ined in new Section 3 in the charter: - Name for ??? Board. Mike stated that almost all LF projects use the term = Governing Board. While some people still don't like the name there were no = strong objections so we decided to proceed with calling this the Governing = Board. We do need to ensure that the scope is clearly defined so there's no= confusion over what it is/is not responsible for. I've updated the charter= to reflect this. - Ed asked how we resolve disputes between the GB and the TB. Consensus was= that if the roles are clearly defined this should never happen as they're = responsible for different things. Mike clarified that this hasn't been an i= ssue on other projects. - Discussed which board should be responsible for approving any exceptions = to the IP policy (i.e. licensing changes). Consensus was that we need to co= nsider business aspects when making this decision so it should be the respo= nsibility of the GB. I've updated the charter to move this from the TB to t= he GB. - Discussed scope of TB and whether it also oversees smaller sub-projects l= ike Pktgen and SPP. Consensus was that TB does not cover these sub-project = (identified as "Apps" in http://dpdk.org/browse/). I'll add text to the cha= rter to clarify this. - Discussed which board approves requests for new sub-projects. Both techni= cal and non-technical aspects need to be considered. Agreed that the GB wil= l define the non-technical items that need to be considered (an example mig= ht be "the new sub-project has no or minimal impact on the DPDK project bud= get") and that the approval will then be done by the TB. Until such time as= these non-technical criteria are defined, the GB will approve after approv= al from the TB. This is just an interim measure though. I've updated the ch= arter to reflect this. - Discussed whether the GB should define high-level goals for the project t= hat the TB is responsible for implementing. This could include things like = the need for LTS releases, quality expectations etc. We didn't conclude on = this, but the consensus seems to be that this should be within the scope of= the TB. 2. How do we move faster? - These are good discussions, but we are making slow progress. - Agreed that we need to make more progress in between meetings via discuss= ion on the mailing list and comments on the charter. Issues specifically re= lating to the charter should be added as comments to the doc. Any broader i= ssues should be raised on the mailing list. Next Meeting: Tuesday November 29th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. Suggestion fr= om Matt is that we focus on specific comments that have been added in advan= ce to the charter doc rather than allowing random issues to be brought up i= n the meeting. This should encourage people to review the doc and comment i= n advance of the meeting. We'll try this for next week's meeting.