From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC88B559A for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 18:09:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2016 09:09:43 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,500,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1069377384" Received: from fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.202]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2016 09:09:43 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.116.17) by fmsmsx104.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:09:43 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.68]) by fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.116.17]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 09:09:43 -0800 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" CC: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] Board Names Thread-Index: AdJAI7GZppqszIzhS3CxhXhg7tId+wAS5UoA Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:09:42 +0000 Message-ID: <741CD456-3A35-49A7-AF09-FC19998E1FD5@intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676143A8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676143A8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.252.134.192] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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 17:09:45 -0000 > On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:50 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim w= rote: >=20 > One thing that came up during yesterday's call that we didn't reach a con= clusion 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. >=20 > 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 boa= rd 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 mislea= ding as the board only manages the budget for CI, not all aspects of CI. >=20 > 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 othe= r LF projects. I like TSC or 2.b >=20 > 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, Tech= nical 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 Comm= ittee > OPNFV (https://www.opnfv.org/about/governance): Board of Directors, Techn= ical Steering Committee >=20 > What do people think? My vote would be 1.a and 2.b, but I'm not overly co= ncerned with names as long as we clearly define the scope of each. >=20 >=20 > Tim >=20 Regards, Keith