Re: [dpdk-moving] Board Names

["Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>]

> 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