DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>
To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>,
	"moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Board Names
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:19:05 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <582CBF39.5080508@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676143A8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>

Hi,

On 11/16/2016 11:50 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> One thing that came up during yesterday's call that we didn't reach a conclusion on was names for our board and tech board. Rather than take up time on this during the weekly calls, perhaps we can agree via email.
> 
> For the board itself, there are several options including:
> 1.a Governing Board. This is frequently used in other LF projects.
> 1.b Board of Directors. This is also frequently used in other LF projects.
> 1.c DPDK Board. This is a bit more neutral and doesn't imply that the board governs the technical aspects of the project.
> 1.d DPDK Marketing & CI Board. This is more specific, but is a bit misleading as the board only manages the budget for CI, not all aspects of CI.

I have a preference for "DPDK Governing Board" - but I agree that there
is a potential implication of control over the technical governance we
should avoid.

> For the technical board, the options include:
> 2.a Technical Board. This is the current name.
> 2.b Technical Steering Committee. This is the name typically used on other LF projects.

I see no reason to change this during the move from the name we arrived
at last year (which, if I recall correctly, was quite a long discussion).

Thanks,
Dave.

> For reference, here's the naming that some other LF projects use:
> FD.io (https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/exhibit_a_-_fd.io_project_by-laws.pdf): Board of Directors, Technical Steering Committee
> IOVisor (https://www.iovisor.org/about/governance): Governing Board, Technical Steering Committee
> OVS (http://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf): (no board because there's no budget), Technical Steering Committee
> ODL (https://www.opendaylight.org/bylaws): Board, Technical Steering Committee
> OPNFV (https://www.opnfv.org/about/governance): Board of Directors, Technical Steering Committee
> 
> What do people think? My vote would be 1.a and 2.b, but I'm not overly concerned with names as long as we clearly define the scope of each.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 

-- 
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

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-11-16 20:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-16 16:50 O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-11-16 17:09 ` Wiles, Keith
2016-11-16 17:44 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-16 20:00   ` Wiles, Keith
2016-11-16 20:19 ` Dave Neary [this message]
2016-11-17  9:16   ` Vincent JARDIN

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly 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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=582CBF39.5080508@redhat.com \
    --to=dneary@redhat.com \
    --cc=moving@dpdk.org \
    --cc=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).