[dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 20th

[dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 20th

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct any errors or to add additional details.

Attendees: Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), John McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Kevin Traynor (Red Hat), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Stephen Hemminger (Microsoft), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND), Yoni Luzon (Mellanox). 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
Minutes of November 29th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000099.html
Minutes of December 6th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000121.html
Minutes of December 13th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000124.html
Technical governance, including info on Maintainers and sub-trees: http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html & http://dpdk.org/dev.


1. Status of charter doc:
- The only remaining comment on the doc is Matt's suggestion for a Contributor member level. We need both Mike Dolan (who opposes this) and Matt present on the same call to disposition this.
- People should conduct a final review of the charter before the next meeting (Tuesday 10th Jan). Issues can either be raised as comments in the doc or raised on the moving@dpdk.org mailing list. Please refer to the previous discussion/resolution if you're raising an issue that's been covered before so that we don't simply repeat previous discussions

2. Technical Governance:
- John and Thomas described the recent changes to the Contributor's Guidelines which now includes a section on Maintainers and Sub-Trees. See http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/patches.html#maintainers-and-sub-trees. Again, people should review and raise any additional comments/concerns on the dev@dpdk.org mailing list.

3. Technical Board:
- Ed asked what happens if the Technical Board make a decision on a disputed patch set but a Maintainer/Committer refuses to comply with that decision. In reality, it's not expected that this situation will occur, but I've added text to section 3.2.1 point iv to clarify that the Tech Board has the right to make any changes necessary to enforce its decision in this situation.
- We discussed the need to review membership of the Tech Board. Proposals for how to do this included: a) ask the Tech Board to review and update its own membership; b) define some membership criteria and hold a vote. We didn't reach a definite conclusion on this. I'd suggest that we ask the current Tech Board to determine the most efficient process to update its membership. I'll submit a request to techboard@dpdk.org to ask that they do this and that they provide an update at a future meeting.

4. Membership:
- Ed's guidance from FD.io was that the process of recruiting members could take up to 6 months. We have done a lot of prep work during these meetings so we hope to do it faster than this and will target 3 months. This would allow for a project launch in Q2. We'll use our first meeting in Jan to work out the next steps on this.
- Potential member companies should make sure that their decision-makers for joining and funding DPDK are aware of these discussions and of the status of the charter doc.


Next Meeting:
We'll resume again on Tuesday January 10th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We'll cover any additional (and hopefully final) comments on the charter, and discuss next steps for determining project members.

Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 20th

[Thomas Monjalon]

2016-12-21 15:55, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> Next Meeting:
> We'll resume again on Tuesday January 10th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST,
> 7am PST. We'll cover any additional (and hopefully final) comments on the
> charter, and discuss next steps for determining project members.

I was attending the call yesterday (January 10) but I did not heard everything,
especially when Ed was talking (probably because of his micro/bandwidth/echo).
Please would it be possible to have a detailed transcription of the different
opinions expressed, in the minutes?
Thanks

Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 20th

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 8:26 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org; O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux
> Foundation" call, December 20th
> 
> 2016-12-21 15:55, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > Next Meeting:
> > We'll resume again on Tuesday January 10th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am
> EST,
> > 7am PST. We'll cover any additional (and hopefully final) comments on
> the
> > charter, and discuss next steps for determining project members.
> 
> I was attending the call yesterday (January 10) but I did not heard
> everything,
> especially when Ed was talking (probably because of his
> micro/bandwidth/echo).
> Please would it be possible to have a detailed transcription of the
> different
> opinions expressed, in the minutes?
> Thanks

Yes, will do. I could hear Ed OK, but it seems like some others couldn't. I'll send minutes later today and will clarify the opinions that were expressed during the call.

Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 20th

[Dave Neary]

Hi,

On 12/21/2016 10:55 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> 4. Membership:
> - Ed's guidance from FD.io was that the process of recruiting members could take up to 6 months. We have done a lot of prep work during these meetings so we hope to do it faster than this and will target 3 months. This would allow for a project launch in Q2. We'll use our first meeting in Jan to work out the next steps on this.
> - Potential member companies should make sure that their decision-makers for joining and funding DPDK are aware of these discussions and of the status of the charter doc.

It seems that if the review of the technical governance is now complete,
and the DPDK developer community (and in particular the current
technical board) is OK with any changes proposed, the biggest remaining
item will be the budget proposal and setting of membership fees.

Do we have some updated material from the Linux Foundation as a starting
point for that discussion?

Thanks,
Dave.

> Next Meeting:
> We'll resume again on Tuesday January 10th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We'll cover any additional (and hopefully final) comments on the charter, and discuss next steps for determining project members.
> 

-- 
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

Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 20th

[Vincent JARDIN]

Le 11/01/2017 à 14:04, Dave Neary a écrit :
> It seems that if the review of the technical governance is now complete,
> and the DPDK developer community (and in particular the current
> technical board) is OK with any changes proposed, the biggest remaining
> item will be the budget proposal and setting of membership fees.

Hi Dave,

I agree that we are close, but there are still some few topics that were 
raised based on some reviews of the charter during the seasonal:
   - meetings of the Governing board should be opened, I heard from Mike 
that there are some issues because some people do not like 'open board'. 
Please, they need to be explained.

   - there will be a fee for the lab, it shall be the *same fee* for 
everyone so everyone share the same constraints and benefits for the 
same fee.

I guess, they can be solved quickly.

Best regards,
   Vincent

Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 20th

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:09 PM
> To: Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim
> <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Kevin Traynor <ktraynor@redhat.com>;
> moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux
> Foundation" call, December 20th
> 
> Le 11/01/2017 à 14:04, Dave Neary a écrit :
> > It seems that if the review of the technical governance is now
> complete,
> > and the DPDK developer community (and in particular the current
> > technical board) is OK with any changes proposed, the biggest
> remaining
> > item will be the budget proposal and setting of membership fees.

Yes, we're getting close. I hoped that we would be able to start the discussion on membership rates and identifying members at this week's meeting, but that didn't happen. We should definitely do that at next week's meeting.

> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> I agree that we are close, but there are still some few topics that were
> raised based on some reviews of the charter during the seasonal:
>    - meetings of the Governing board should be opened, I heard from Mike
> that there are some issues because some people do not like 'open board'.
> Please, they need to be explained.

I've summarized the reasons that were given by Mike and Ed in the minutes. We agreed to consider this again and finalize it at next week's call.

> 
>    - there will be a fee for the lab, it shall be the *same fee* for
> everyone so everyone share the same constraints and benefits for the
> same fee.

As I said on the call on Tuesday, I don't agree that all members should pay the same rate for the lab. I agree that the total cost should be the same for Gold and Silver members, but account needs to be taken of how much they've already contributed to the project through membership fees. If we ask Gold members to contribute more funding to the project, and then expect them to pay the same rate as Silver members for lab services, then they're effectively paying twice.

Anyway, we agreed that we would specify in the charter that rates and limits on lab equipment will be determined by the Governing Board.

> 
> I guess, they can be solved quickly.
> 
> Best regards,
>    Vincent