DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / Atom feed
From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
To: "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: [dpdk-moving] Today's Meeting
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 11:23:27 +0000
Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA72279643@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)

A reminder that today's meeting is 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

Project Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs
Minutes from last week's meeting: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000099.html

Items that we should cover today include:

- We need to decide how we're going to proceed on the suggested adoption of a CLA and/or license change in order to provide patent protection. We have two options:
a) Agree that this is not within the scope of the initiative to move the project to the LF. The project charter will document the current process (BSD license and DCO). Once a Governing Board is in place, anybody can propose adoption of a CLA and/or a change in license, and the board will review and agree on how to proceed.
b) We ask the LF to facilitate separate meetings on this involving legal counsel from the major contributors to the project.

- For voting, the current draft of the charter specifies a quorum of 50% for the GB (see 3.1.3) and TB (3.2.3) for a meeting to proceed. Thomas suggested on the mailing list that the quorum for the TB should be higher. We should agree on the right percentage.

- For Membership (section 4) we need to agree whether membership relates to the project or just to the GB. There are a couple of comments in the doc from Vincent, and Thomas has raised the same issue on the mailing list as well, saying that membership only applies to the GB. I'd viewed this differently, that people became members of the project and that one of the benefits is representation on the GB. We need to conclude on this.

- A related issue that we need to conclude on is whether we need a Contributor membership level as Matt has proposed (related to the CLA/DCO item above).

- For CI, good progress has been made on putting in place a distributed solution as we discussed previously. For a centralized performance lab, Jaswinder submitted a comment proposing a cap on the number of boards a gold member can contribute, which seems reasonable. Matt added a comment saying that the scope should allow software vendors to submit DPDK-enabled applications to be run as part of the performance testing. Note that we don't need to define the full scope of performance testing here as that can be done separately. We just need to agree at a high level.

- For Technical Governance (section 5), we need to agree how much of this should be in the charter and how much should be maintained in the Contributor's Guidelines and/or DPDK.org Development page. I put some proposed text in the doc which links to the other docs that cover this. If we agree that's the right approach then we don't need to discuss further. If we want more detail in this doc, then Thomas has proposed some initial text and Keith and others have commented on this.

- Where is the technical governance for apps that are not part of the DPDK project documented? These are small, but it should still be captured somewhere.

- At the moment, the IP Policy (section 6) says that everything is BSD licensed. That's not strictly true as some small parts of DPDK use GPL or dual BSD/GPL. We need to capture those existing exceptions somewhere, either in this doc or in another location that we can link to.

             reply index

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-06 11:23 O'Driscoll, Tim [this message]
2016-12-13 16:22 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-12-13 19:22   ` Stephen Hemminger
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-11-29 10:58 O'Driscoll, Tim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically 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:

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA72279643@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \
    --cc=moving@dpdk.org \


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

DPDK community structure changes

Archives are clonable:
	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 \
	public-inbox-index moving

Newsgroup available over NNTP:

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