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 A089E2BAF for ; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 18:35:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2016 09:35:11 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,310,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="39881985" Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.96]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Dec 2016 09:35:10 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.159]) by IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.12.108]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 7 Dec 2016 17:35:09 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 6th Thread-Index: AdJQsCelR2VWdvDbSY6fEnyMiMQ2yQ== Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 17:35:09 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA7227AADB@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiMTM0M2VhZTctNmQzOS00ZmFiLWI3NDAtYWMwZDkzMjFlNjEwIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiI3aGpVYlwvVVZSRURoWkticmFMYUtvMVp5blcwMzBod3N3REtGYVhoZDFkbz0ifQ== x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 6th 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: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 17:35:13 -0000 Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct any erro= rs or to add additional details. Attendees: Bruce Richardson (Intel), Dave Neary (Red Hat), Ed Warnicke (Cis= co), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Bro= cade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), John Bromhead (Cavium), John McNamara (Intel)= , Keith Wiles (Intel), Kevin Traynor (Red Hat), Matt Spencer (ARM), Olga Sh= ern (Mellanox), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Ja= rdin (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-e6NQt3OV= zAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: http://dpdk.org/ml/arch= ives/dev/2016-October/049259.html Minutes of October 31st call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-Novem= ber/000031.html Minutes of November 8th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-Novem= ber/000058.html Minutes of November 15th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-Nove= mber/000061.html Minutes of November 22nd call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-Nove= mber/000085.html Minutes of November 29th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-Nove= mber/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 pr= oject 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 co= unsel 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 pro= cess (BSD license and DCO). - Agreed that we should start the legal discussions now rather than wait fo= r a governing board to be in place. Those that are interested in participat= ing should send names, including names of their legal counsel, to Mike Dola= n who will facilitate the discussions. Those discussions will be used to ag= ree on the problem statement and on a proposed solution. This will then nee= d to be approved and implemented by the governing board when it's establish= ed. 2. Responsibility for license changes (GB or TB): - Discussed whether the GB, TB or both should be responsible for license ch= anges. The concern with the GB doing this was that the perspective of contr= ibutors 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 bo= th 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 t= his being a responsibility of the GB (Cisco, NXP, ARM, Cavium, Intel, Linar= o and Red Hat in favour, 6WIND against). We do expect the GB to fully consi= der 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 upd= ated 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 member= s of the project. It's a philosophical issue, but one that we need to be cl= ear on. - Point 4.a already clarifies that technical contributions are independent = of project membership. Mike changed 4.b during the meeting to reinforce thi= s. I've made some subsequent changes to the wording of 4.b to clarify furth= er. - 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 chan= ges to the charter for consistency across projects. 5. Contributor membership level: - Discussed whether we need a contributor membership level to reinforce tha= t contributors are members of the project too. Mike advised against this ba= sed 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 t= o 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 a= t a cost determined by the board. I've updated the doc to say this (4.d.b). Next Meeting: Tuesday December 13th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We need to re= visit whether we need a Contributor membership level, and determine how muc= h detail needs to go into the Technical Governance section. My suggestion o= n the Technical Governance section is to keep this very high level and simp= ly reference other locations where this is captured. See the proposed text = at the start of this section.