DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 09:40:15 +0000
Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6762737D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23881101.CHBABArBQF@xps13>


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 9:21 AM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> Cc: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux
> Foundation" call, November 29th
> 
> 2016-11-30 22:08, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > > 2016-11-30 16:01, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > > > - For voting, agreed that the quorum for a meeting for either
> board is
> > > 50% of the members. Majority required to pass a vote is 50% of the
> total
> > > board except for: a) changes to the charter require 2/3 of the GB;
> b)
> > > licensing exceptions require 2/3 of the GB.
> > >
> > > The current quorum for the TB is 6/7. 50% is a big change.
> >
> > I'm not sure where 6/7 was agreed,
> 
> It was defined by the technical board.
> 
> > but I'd be against that for a few reasons:
> > - Requiring a 6/7 majority makes it very difficult to pass a vote
> because almost everybody has to be available, in attendance and in
> agreement.
> 
> No, it is an attendance quorum. It means we cannot take a decision
> if too many members are missing.
> The vote is at majority (50%).

That makes sense. Apologies for my misunderstanding. I think having the majority required to pass a vote at 50% is good. We can discuss the quorum required for a meeting again, but the concern that was expressed with making it higher was just that it makes it more difficult to get enough people together to proceed.

> 
> > - It means that companies that have two representatives on the board
> (currently Intel and 6WIND) effectively have a veto.
> 
> See above, 50% avoid such veto.
> 
> > - A minor point, but whatever level we decide on should be expressed
> as a percentage so that it's applicable if/when the board size changes.
> 
> Yes, that's why I've suggested in the charter a 70% quorum if I remember
> well
> (but I cannot find it anymore and history is disabled).

I'm far from an expert in Google docs, but I can see the revision history via File -> See Revision history, and see all the comments (including those marked as resolved) by opening the comments thread via the "Comments" button in the top right corner. As above though, the concern over a higher quota was just the difficult in getting enough people together for a meeting to proceed in a timely manner. We can discuss again though and see if this should be higher.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-12-01  9:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-30 16:01 O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-11-30 17:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-30 22:08   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01  9:20     ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-12-01  9:40       ` O'Driscoll, Tim [this message]
2016-11-30 17:39 ` Michael Dolan
2016-11-30 20:55   ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 17:40   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01 17:46     ` Ed Warnicke
2016-12-01 18:01     ` Michael Dolan
2016-12-01 18:41     ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 18:50       ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 19:09         ` Francois Ozog
2016-12-01 19:44           ` Michael Dolan
2016-12-01 20:20             ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01 20:47               ` Wiles, Keith
2016-12-01 21:33           ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-02  9:00             ` Francois Ozog
2016-12-01 20:33       ` O'Driscoll, Tim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6762737D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \
    --cc=moving@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK community structure changes

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving/0 moving/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 moving moving/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving \
		moving@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index moving

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.moving


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git