[dpdk-moving] Board Names

[dpdk-moving] Board Names

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

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.

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.

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

Re: [dpdk-moving] Board Names

[Wiles, Keith]

> On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:50 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com> 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.

I like DPDK Board or 1.c

> 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.
> 
> 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 like TSC or 2.b

> 
> 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
> 

Regards,
Keith

Re: [dpdk-moving] Board Names

[Thomas Monjalon]

2016-11-16 16:50, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> 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 do not like 1.a, 1.b and 1.c because it is not descriptive enough.
We must avoid giving the impression that the technical part of the project
is influenced by those paying a membership.

Why not simply one these new proposals?
1.e Budget Board
1.f Financial Board

> 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.

OK for both

Re: [dpdk-moving] Board Names

[Wiles, Keith]

> On Nov 16, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> wrote:
> 
> 2016-11-16 16:50, O'Driscoll, Tim:
>> 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 do not like 1.a, 1.b and 1.c because it is not descriptive enough.
> We must avoid giving the impression that the technical part of the project
> is influenced by those paying a membership.
> 
> Why not simply one these new proposals?
> 1.e Budget Board
> 1.f Financial Board

I am not a big fan of trying to label this board as it does a bit more then just budgets or financial. It also does marketing, CI allocation and general bottle washer :-) I wish I could come up with a better name that works.

How about this then:

- DPDK Governing Committee (DGC) or DPDK Governing Board (DGB)

- Technical Steering Committee (TSC)

my $0.02 worth, does that make my a gold member :-)
> 
>> 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.
> 
> OK for both

Regards,
Keith

Re: [dpdk-moving] Board Names

[Dave Neary]

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

Re: [dpdk-moving] Board Names

[Vincent JARDIN]

Le 16/11/2016 à 21:19, Dave Neary a écrit :
>> 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.
>

What's about "Administrative Board" in order to support the scope we are 
trying to set?