From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1013BB2E for ; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:47:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6480465748; Wed, 26 Oct 2016 12:47:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-41-137.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-116-103.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.103]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9QCl8lQ026448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:47:09 -0400 To: Francois Ozog , moving@dpdk.org References: From: Dave Neary Message-ID: <5810A5CC.4030508@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 14:47:08 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Wed, 26 Oct 2016 12:47:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [Topics] 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, 26 Oct 2016 12:47:11 -0000 Hi again, On 10/25/2016 10:58 AM, Francois Ozog wrote: > Tim mentioned we need to revise budget, actually I see a few set of > topics adress: > - legal: bylaws, CLA, TCO I would like to ask for what OVS had to agree to - I suspect that it is very lightweight, there are probably not even specific by-laws - I would not be surprised to find that it was a corporate contributors agreement only. I don't know what you mean by a TCO, but I do not believe we should add a CLA (beyond what I mention below). > - governance: board, TSC... I do think we should create a budget oversight group, but a board and TSC sounds a lot like the default set-up for an LF project which is bootstrapping - that's not the case for DPDK, we have a technical governance framework in place already, I do not see the need to set up a TSC. > - finance: budget, membership It will be good to discuss whether we want to have a membership agreement or whether we would be happy with a generic organizational copyright and patent license (explicitly agreeing to license contributions under the BSD license + patent grant) with a DCO for contributions, tied to the signed-off-by on patches (which we have already, unless I am mistaken). Thanks, Dave. > I'll post a few things on [legal] later today. > > Cordially, > > François-Frédéric > > PS: just saw the mailing list anouncement, so I bcc'ed the people I know > just in case... > > > > -- > Linaro > François-Frédéric Ozog | /Director Linaro Networking Group/ > T: +33.67221.6485 > francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog > > -- Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338