From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950E4F72 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 13:46:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2016 04:46:31 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,543,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="8889074" Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.96]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2016 04:46:30 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.145]) by IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.12.108]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:46:29 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Dave Neary , "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter Thread-Index: AdJErpkwZnWV/Q5qQV6nfTnACkYCAABKhJUAAB0nitA= Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:46:28 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623D9E@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67622717@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <583617A4.4000400@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <583617A4.4000400@redhat.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZmQ5YjJhZWUtOWJhNC00NjQzLTg5MDYtYzIyY2FjNjdkMTcxIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJ6SEJtR21vdmorcDhUSEdTaHIyRzJJaENhOFIxaGhuRjREZ2dKSG1uM09BPSJ9 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: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated 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: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:46:33 -0000 I've added a few specific comments below. Firstly an apology. The version you edited is the original one I created. D= ue to Intel IT restrictions there was no way for me to give public access t= o that, so Mike Dolan created a new version at: https://docs.google.com/doc= ument/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs which anybody can acce= ss. We're using that version now. I wanted to keep the original version in place because people had entered c= omments and it's useful to still be able to see those. What I should have d= one was to change the permissions on the old version to make it read only. = I've done that now. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:27 PM > To: O'Driscoll, Tim ; moving@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated > Charter >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > I made a significant insertion/suggestion into the Charter, and asked a > few related questions. The insertion was an attempt to describe the > current state of the technical governance of the DPDK project. Please, > if there are corrections to be made, make them. >=20 > My feeling is that this section should be owned by the Technical > Governing Board, not the main Governing Board, so my first question was: > should this be a separate document, referred to in the main doc? That > way, the description of the governance there is not subject to change by > a 2/3rd majority of the governing board (sec 12). I was thinking the same thing last night. Mike Dolan's comments on Tuesday = about not putting things in the charter if we might want to change them in = future made me wonder if we should limit the scope of the technical governa= nce that's documented there. My preference would be to use the charter to d= ocument the Technical Board as that's our governance/decision-making body f= or technical issues, but to leave the rest of the technical governance (git= repository structure, sub-trees, MAINTAINERS file, what the maintainers' r= esponsibilities are, how maintainers are added/removed etc.) out of the cha= rter. We could then continue to maintain that info as at present in the Con= tributor's Guidelines (http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html) = and DPDK.org Development page (http://dpdk.org/dev), and simply add a link = to it from the charter. Then if we want to make changes in future, they can= be agreed on the dev@dpdk.org mailing list without need to update the char= ter. > My second question was how much we want to document the current state, > versus the process in the abstract? Should we list the current members > of the TGB, or instead point to a place which will be the definitive > list of the current TGB at all times (including after changes)? I'd be in favour of documenting the responsibilities etc. of the Technical = Board in the charter, but identifying the individual members on the DPDK.or= g Development page (http://dpdk.org/dev) so that they can change without re= quiring an update to the charter. Again we can link to that from the charte= r doc. > Thirdly, I proposed that we have one at-large Governing Board member, > elected by the technical community, to add some more developer voice, > and potentially diversity from companies who are not members. In the current draft of the charter I've specified that a Technical Board r= ep should be a member of the Governing Board. Are you proposing another tec= hnical rep in addition to that, or does that cover your suggestion? > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software project > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation in > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the > most part. The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership section. A= t last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a membership= category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people felt this wa= s over-kill. Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think something = further is required? >=20 > Any feedback/comments/tomatoes to throw? >=20 > Thanks, > Dave. >=20 > On 11/22/2016 06:08 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > > Firstly, just a reminder on today's meeting. It's at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, > 10am EST, 7am PST. Access numbers are: > > France: +33 1588 77298 > > UK: +44 179340 2663 > > USA: +1 916 356 2663 > > Bridge Number: 5 > > Conference ID: 94641018 > > Link to Skype meeting: > https://meet.intel.com/tim.odriscoll/G7H113HY > > > > At last week's meeting we had some discussion on the responsibilities > of the (Administrative/DPDK/Governing) Board and the Technical Board. We > agreed we'd focus on the roles and responsibilities of these two bodies > at today's meeting. > > > > Looking at the draft charter in preparation for today's meeting, > responsibilities for these two bodies weren't clearly defined and were > in different parts of the document. So, I've consolidated these into a > new section 3 on Project Governance which hopefully will make things > clearer. We'll walk through this at today's meeting. > > > > I've made updates in areas where I think we have agreement, but people > should feel free to comment if that's not the case. I've added notes on > things that I think we haven't yet agreed on and need to discuss. > > > > I've left the previous text in the document for now and haven't marked > any comments on that as resolved. Once we've updated and agreed on the > new text, I'll clean the document up, mark comments as resolved, and > delete the old parts. > > > > > > Tim > > > > > > >=20 > -- > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy > Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338