From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2958910C9C; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 17:41:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2016 08:41:34 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,384,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="45436446" Received: from irsmsx153.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.75]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2016 08:41:34 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.173]) by IRSMSX153.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.9.24]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:41:33 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "techboard@dpdk.org" CC: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Review/Update Tech Board Membership Thread-Index: AdJbqErifYw2MZcKToOj9a6Ljw0fJA== Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 16:41:33 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA72299762@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: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNGI5MWZjYzMtNWQ3OC00NTU5LTljMDgtYTZlZjQ1OTIxZGU3IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJvSHIwXC9sVXJKcXZqQ1N3RFRkV3VSYitsTDdFRmp0cWozU0JjTlc5cnFROD0ifQ== 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] Review/Update Tech Board Membership 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, 21 Dec 2016 16:41:36 -0000 At our last 2 meetings on moving DPDK to the Linux Foundation, a concern ha= s been raised that the Tech Board was created over a year ago and may not a= ccurately represent current contributors and architectures. We agreed at ye= sterday's call that it was a good idea to review the composition of the Tec= h Board and make any updates that may be required. We discussed the process for doing this at yesterday's call but didn't reac= h a conclusion on this. We've consistently agreed that we want to avoid any= political interference in the composition and operation of the Tech Board,= so I think the decision on the best way to review/update membership should= be made by the current board. You may decide to do this via nominations, b= y defining a voting process or via some other mechanism. The current projec= t charter says that new members must be nominated by an existing Tech Board= member and must be approved by a majority of the board, but that text can = be changed if you decide on a different process. It would be good to get an update on this on behalf of the Tech Board at on= e of our meetings in Jan. Tim