From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93AE912A8 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 18:27:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2016 09:27:20 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,543,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1073080197" Received: from irsmsx109.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.23]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 24 Nov 2016 09:27:19 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.145]) by IRSMSX109.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.158]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:27:18 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Matt Spencer , Thomas Monjalon , Dave Neary CC: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter Thread-Index: AdJErpkwZnWV/Q5qQV6nfTnACkYCAABKhJUAAB0nitAAAkbwgAABlw9qAAWK+sA= Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 17:27:16 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623FF8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67622717@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <583617A4.4000400@redhat.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623D9E@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>, <1540534.G53vByIeVs@xps13> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiZDc5ZTEyYWEtOTY3My00YjYzLTgwODUtMGVlOGExOWRmZjE1IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJDZ1QwUUFGNFRMVXVtTDBMOGE4NnhqM1F5SWJKTWd4dm9xSjhxdmcxaTRNPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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 17:27:22 -0000 > From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com]=20 > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 2:16 PM > To: Thomas Monjalon ; O'Driscoll, Tim ; Dave Neary > Cc: moving@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charte= r > > I think I suggested a Contributor level member so that they could be allo= cated official positions in the charter. > > It was also to track who had signed up to the CLA (or similar). > > At the time we were discussing Silver member access to the Governing Boar= d (in a 5-1 ratio, maximum 2 if I remember). =A0The Contributor level membe= r was there to allow Contributor access to the board at a suggested 20-1 ra= tio with some maximum, voted for by their peers. > > I think this level of membership is needed to track CLA? The need for a CLA has been raised a couple of times and we do need to conc= lude on that. The current DPDK process (http://dpdk.org/dev#send) requires = that each patch has a "Signed-off-by" line certifying that it's compliant w= ith the Developer Certificate of Origin (http://developercertificate.org/).= Can you explain what you think is not covered adequately by this? I'm definitely not a lawyer, but from a quick glance at the Linaro CLA (htt= ps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8xTReYFXqNtR0wwRUhqUEpwTUE/preview) it seems= to cover essentially the same things with the biggest difference I saw bei= ng a grant of patent license. If we feel that a patent license is important= then there are other ways to achieve that such as moving to the Apache 2.0= license (https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) for new contribution= s. Coverage with either approach (CLA or Apache 2.0) would only be partial = anyway, as neither would apply to the existing DPDK code. My concern over a CLA would be that the need to sign and submit paperwork b= efore they can contribute to DPDK would deter smaller contributors. > > /Matt > > ________________________________________ > From: moving on behalf of Thomas Monjalon > Sent: 24 November 2016 13:26 > To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Dave Neary > Cc: moving@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charte= r=20 >=A0 > 2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim: > > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com] > > > 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 proje= ct > > > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation i= n > > > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the > > > most part. > >=20 > > The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership sectio= n. At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a member= ship category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people felt thi= s was over-kill. > >=20 > > Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think someth= ing further is required? > > I think the membership section must be part of the governing board sectio= n. > So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing boar= d. > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are conf= idential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,= please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to a= ny other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information i= n any medium. Thank you.=20