From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63DBF58EC for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 10:40:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2016 01:40:17 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,724,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="1076021124" Received: from irsmsx153.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.75]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2016 01:40:16 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.145]) by IRSMSX153.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.9.203]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 09:40:16 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th Thread-Index: AdJLHFBYJsbkGRs8Ql6xLCVyWM05gAAEFMYAAAmuknAAGDMZAAAARhHw Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 09:40:15 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6762737D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626AEE@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <1520761.A9r9uhvuWc@xps13> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626FA5@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <23881101.CHBABArBQF@xps13> In-Reply-To: <23881101.CHBABArBQF@xps13> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMThlOTZmMDEtZjBlZi00NzdiLWI3MDItNzY2NDEzN2IyMWQ5IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJOSW1CNmlKYlZSTEFVTEVpc1d0ZUVBMHoyM3NXSnhSYlFOY3R6WmJjUTFJPSJ9 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] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th 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, 01 Dec 2016 09:40:18 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 9:21 AM > To: O'Driscoll, Tim > Cc: moving@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux > Foundation" call, November 29th >=20 > 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, >=20 > It was defined by the technical board. >=20 > > 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. >=20 > 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 maj= ority required to pass a vote at 50% is good. We can discuss the quorum req= uired for a meeting again, but the concern that was expressed with making i= t higher was just that it makes it more difficult to get enough people toge= ther to proceed. >=20 > > - It means that companies that have two representatives on the board > (currently Intel and 6WIND) effectively have a veto. >=20 > See above, 50% avoid such veto. >=20 > > - 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. >=20 > 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 v= ia File -> See Revision history, and see all the comments (including those = marked as resolved) by opening the comments thread via the "Comments" butto= n 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 sho= uld be higher.