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 856935681 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 21:55:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (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 003BD8F507; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:55:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-41-137.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-116-212.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.212]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAUKt2IE018874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:55:03 -0500 To: Michael Dolan , "O'Driscoll, Tim" References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626AEE@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" From: Dave Neary Message-ID: <583F3CA5.7060803@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:55:01 -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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.28]); Wed, 30 Nov 2016 20:55:04 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th 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, 30 Nov 2016 20:55:04 -0000 Hi Mike, On 11/30/2016 12:39 PM, Michael Dolan wrote: > Hi Tim, sorry I couldn't make it with a LF Board meeting conflict > yesterday. As for 1), most/all of our projects facing this issue decide > to go Apache 2. A CLA is less preferably particularly with the BSD > license. Where we do use a CLA on a project it's usually the same as the > Apache CCLA/ICLA and that combined with the BSD license will I'm fairly > certain not achieve what Linaro legal is probably concerned about. A follow-on question: Has the Linux Foundation ever taken on a BSD licensed project in the past? Given that the project has an existing history and license, a license change might be a more involved change (both practically and culturally) than the technical community woiuld be prepared for. > Just some thoughts on how other projects tackled this question. It would > probably be best if we push any further discussion on this to a small > group of your legal counsel as the various levers have different > implications and I'm uncomfortable continuing this discussion without > your counsel being involved. Hopefully an answer specifically about what has been done in the past would be OK - I understand you don't want to get into the area of advice here. Thanks, Dave. > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:01 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim > > wrote: > > Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct > any errors or to add additional details. > > Attendees: Dave Neary (Red Hat), Ed Warnicke (Cisco), > Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck > (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), Jerin Jacob (Cavium), Jim St. > Leger (Intel), John McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Olga > Shern (Mellanox), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), > Vincent Jardin (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-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs > > Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html > > Minutes of October 31st call: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000031.html > > Minutes of November 8th call: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000058.html > > Minutes of November 15th call: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000061.html > > Minutes of November 22nd call: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000085.html > > Current technical governance, including composition of the Tech > Board: http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html > & > http://dpdk.org/dev. > > > 1. Discussed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) vs Developer > Certificate of Origin (DCO) > - Current process is to use a DCO. > - Francois-Frederic proposed using a CLA. This is based on input > from the Linaro legal team and some Linaro members who have > indicated that not having a CLA prevents them contributing to or > using DPDK. > - Discussed what benefit they think they'll get from CLA. The main > thing it adds is patent protection. This could be achieved in other > ways, for example using the Apache 2.0 license. Neither solution > would apply to existing DPDK code though so any benefit would only > apply to new code. > - Vincent asked if there are problems with other BSD licensed > projects. We agreed to check with the Linux Foundation (Mike Dolan) > to see if they have any guidance based on other BSD licensed > projects. I'll ask Mike. > > 2. Discussed comments on project charter > - Agreed that the Governing Board does not specify requirements for > the Technical Board to implement. The two boards are peers. One can > make suggestions to the other at any time, but these aren't > requirements and don't have to be accepted. > - Discussed how members are added to/removed from the Technical > Board. Agreed that the TB approves adding/removing members. Agreed > that the TB needs to consider technical contributions from the > individuals and support for all architectures when making these > decisions. > - Discussed Dave's proposal for a representative of the technical > community on the GB (in addition to the rep from the TB). Agreed not > to do this and just to keep the single rep from the TB on the GB. > Also discussed whether there should be a GB rep on the TB and agreed > that this did not make sense. > - For voting, agreed that the quorum for a meeting for either board > is 50% of the members. Majority required to pass a vote is 50% of > the total board except for: a) changes to the charter require 2/3 of > the GB; b) licensing exceptions require 2/3 of the GB. > - I've updated the charter (section 3 - Project Governance) to > reflect these changes. > > > Next Meeting: > Tuesday December 6th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We'll > focus on the comments on the Membership and Technical Governance > sections of the charter, and also discuss CLA/DCO if we have more > input/guidance on this from the LF. > > > > -- 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