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 35313378E for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:19:06 +0100 (CET) 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 714EF81222; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:19:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-41-137.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-116-6.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.6]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAGKJ5vm008125 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:19:06 -0500 To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , "moving@dpdk.org" References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676143A8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Dave Neary Message-ID: <582CBF39.5080508@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 15:19:05 -0500 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: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676143A8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 [10.5.110.25]); Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:19:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Board Names 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, 16 Nov 2016 20:19:07 -0000 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