* [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 6th
@ 2016-12-07 17:35 O'Driscoll, Tim
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: O'Driscoll, Tim @ 2016-12-07 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct any errors or to add additional details.
Attendees: Bruce Richardson (Intel), Dave Neary (Red Hat), Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), John Bromhead (Cavium), John McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Kevin Traynor (Red Hat), Matt Spencer (ARM), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND). Note that there may have been others, but as people joined at different times it was difficult to keep track.
Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things:
Project Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs
Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html
Minutes of October 31st call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000031.html
Minutes of November 8th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000058.html
Minutes of November 15th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000061.html
Minutes of November 22nd call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000085.html
Minutes of November 29th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000099.html
Current technical governance, including composition of the Tech Board: http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html & http://dpdk.org/dev.
1. Contributor License Agreement (CLA) vs Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO):
- We discussed two options for this:
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.
- Agreed that this is out of scope for the current project charter and the move to Linux Foundation. The project charter will document the current process (BSD license and DCO).
- Agreed that we should start the legal discussions now rather than wait for a governing board to be in place. Those that are interested in participating should send names, including names of their legal counsel, to Mike Dolan who will facilitate the discussions. Those discussions will be used to agree on the problem statement and on a proposed solution. This will then need to be approved and implemented by the governing board when it's established.
2. Responsibility for license changes (GB or TB):
- Discussed whether the GB, TB or both should be responsible for license changes. The concern with the GB doing this was that the perspective of contributors to the project might not be properly represented. The concern with the TB doing this was that business issues associated with license changes might not be properly considered. The concern with needing approval from both was added complexity and lack of clear responsibility for the decision. In other projects, this is typically a responsibility of the GB.
- We didn't reach a unanimous decision, but the majority was in favour of this being a responsibility of the GB (Cisco, NXP, ARM, Cavium, Intel, Linaro and Red Hat in favour, 6WIND against). We do expect the GB to fully consider the views of the technical community if/when any changes are made.
3. Quorum for Technical Board:
- Agreed that the quorum for TB meetings to proceed should be 70%. I've updated the charter to reflect this (section 3.2.3, point ii).
4. Membership of Governing Board versus membership of the project:
- Discussed whether Gold and Silver members are members of the GB or members of the project. It's a philosophical issue, but one that we need to be clear on.
- Point 4.a already clarifies that technical contributions are independent of project membership. Mike changed 4.b during the meeting to reinforce this. I've made some subsequent changes to the wording of 4.b to clarify further.
- The question was asked of why we can't put Membership under the Governing Board section. Mike clarified that the LF want to minimize structural changes to the charter for consistency across projects.
5. Contributor membership level:
- Discussed whether we need a contributor membership level to reinforce that contributors are members of the project too. Mike advised against this based on the extra complexity that it adds. Matt has questioned this again in the comments on the doc so we'll need to discuss further either via email or in next week's meeting.
6. Scope of performance test lab:
- Jaswinder suggested that the board would need to determine limits on how much hardware could be contributed in order to manage costs. That's a good suggestion and I've updated the doc to reflect this (4.c.b).
- Matt suggested that software vendors should be able to provide software to be run in the performance lab. I've updated the doc to say this (4.c.b.ii).
- Ed suggested that we relax the restriction on only allowing gold members to contribute hardware/software. On FD.io, lower-tier members can do this at a cost determined by the board. I've updated the doc to say this (4.d.b).
Tuesday December 13th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We need to revisit whether we need a Contributor membership level, and determine how much detail needs to go into the Technical Governance section. My suggestion on the Technical Governance section is to keep this very high level and simply reference other locations where this is captured. See the proposed text at the start of this section.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread
only message in thread, other threads:[~2016-12-07 17:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-12-07 17:35 [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 6th O'Driscoll, Tim
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 \
Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git