From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-db5eur01on0083.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.2.83]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323FE5591 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 20:02:03 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=armh.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector1-arm-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=TEse8tbxw532Ygxeo21AoUS3mTTz0f28LzxUJxnvMh8=; b=KhD3JAEebtsZULWDt3CAGxAg1GT0fDxX550OKIt4gG8oZmxHYgT6ZIQ8An3EA6I6Pw7SX39SV8nl19CmxgI3163mApJDMMPjyC0GKjhC1zGtE/WT4YP1XzW/sIixnwtccebbusr9zovuAYjIydojsTq/Fg7QjBm9nK1pa8ThS8k= Received: from AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.141) by AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.707.6; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:02:02 +0000 Received: from AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.158.141]) by AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com ([10.168.158.141]) with mapi id 15.01.0707.006; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:02:02 +0000 From: Matt Spencer To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Draft Project Charter Thread-Index: AdI5pkYVVUeHBQEwQmOpxJKoL3mb+AARRHXAAAHLolg= Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:02:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760E51D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>, <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760EA61@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760EA61@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US Content-Language: en-GB X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Matt.Spencer@arm.com; x-originating-ip: [25.160.228.132] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4a2052cf-cf3b-42a8-b815-08d40809b932 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0801MB2051; 7:Z0uRx8fppgGK+Rg/EXUaGl6WVe+RYZ1fw+r21uMJIbrz6p54mlkK92I0oTzT5J3PSdcoeQUQynU1VlGZwWWghVc2hqP5uP0QbsT5yxVT2NCRJJRZ8h6d/V8JFdXyoGzlNAjgE8+OWRp+pqZg5C0uDkStRRnqsddk4BWzsJL16CGHKcL/ODNyh2MIX+xYsee5+B0WDhziS8h7beoAhl/++qyfrKwCBVm8mYR4D/dncb+bjVY8YsTQNfnnj7nGqt/Kj0OJmf7Xvzofzq2C97D+DEdArSEU6jQbW4ldCjckDLH0W8OHujj6kthdE3rgAz9AVflDc2xp2l0d1ww0bzZF+lVCbAOW59lmc7AyQXJHWYA= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2051; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(161160346721002)(211936372134217)(100405760836317)(5213294742642)(228905959029699)(119230021023882); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026); SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2051; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2051; x-forefront-prvs: 01208B1E18 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(979002)(7916002)(199003)(377454003)(13464003)(40434004)(189002)(6116002)(5660300001)(97736004)(189998001)(66066001)(5001770100001)(81166006)(3846002)(7116003)(76576001)(101416001)(87936001)(2501003)(2950100002)(7696004)(68736007)(74316002)(5890100001)(86362001)(586003)(3280700002)(122556002)(92566002)(561944003)(3660700001)(7846002)(7736002)(5002510100001)(9686002)(33656002)(3480700004)(102836003)(8676002)(76176999)(8936002)(2900100001)(54356999)(2906002)(7906003)(81156014)(105586002)(106356001)(107886002)(77096005)(50986999)(15395725005)(15940465004)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2051; H:AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: arm.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AM5PR0801MB205136212FD9EF1E628E361A95A60AM5PR0801MB2051_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: arm.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Nov 2016 19:02:01.9047 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0801MB2051 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter 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: Tue, 08 Nov 2016 19:02:04 -0000 --_000_AM5PR0801MB205136212FD9EF1E628E361A95A60AM5PR0801MB2051_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for sorting this out Tim. I have added my comments back to this document, plus added a few more. /Matt ________________________________ From: moving on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim Sent: 08 November 2016 10:15:04 To: moving@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter Internal restrictions on Google docs meant that there was no way for me to = give public access to the draft charter. So, Mike Dolan has taken a copy an= d set it up in a new location: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3= arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs/edit?usp=3Dsharing. Please use this ver= sion from now on. The good news is that there's now public access so anybody can view and com= ment. The bad news is that existing comments have not been preserved. I think it = was only Vincent, Matt and I that had made comments so far. I'll leave the = old version in place so we can still see the history, but Vincent and Matt = should feel free to comment again on the new version. Apologies for the inconvenience. Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll, > Tim > Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 10:55 AM > To: moving@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter > > I created a draft DPDK Project Charter based on the example charters > from other projects that Mike Dolan provided. It's far from complete, > but there should be enough there for people to review and comment. > > I've sent invites via Google docs to those who expressed an interest in > working on the move to the Linux Foundation and who have email addresses > that Google accepts (I think it rejects some people because Intel has > configured Google docs to only allow sharing with Google accounts). I've > attached a PDF for anybody else who wants to review. Alternatively you > can sign up for a Google account at: > https://accounts.google.com/signupwithoutgmail and then use the > following link: https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1oCJMX- > gA9LdubA40t-F31ntb7SeDBWCwDfTnkbl9tFM/edit?usp=3Dsharing (you'll need to > submit an access request the first time you try to open it). > > A lot of it is fairly generic and copied from other charters, but there > are some things to consider: > > 1. I've left the project Mission very broad because that seems to be the > trend in other project charters. It's really just a high level statement > of intent for the project. > > 2. I've assumed for now that we'll have two membership levels, although > we'll need to decide that when we have a better idea of budget and > likely members. For now, this is really just a placeholder. I did add > some thoughts on what the benefits of the two tiers would be. It's worth > reviewing and considering those. The way it's written at the moment, > those who contribute to the budget have a say in how that budget is > spent, and that say is proportional to the size of contribution (so > higher tier members get a bigger say than lower tier members). It is > important to emphasise that this doesn't affect the technical aspects of > the project in any way - anybody can still contribute, become a > maintainer, become a Tech Board member etc. > > 3. Besides DPDK we have a few sub-projects that are also hosted on > dpdk.org. These are identified in section 2. There needs to be a > mechanism for reviewing any new sub-projects that are proposed (e.g. if > somebody wants to add another packet generator to DPDK). At the moment, > I've specified that the Governing Board reviews new projects to make > sure that they're consistent with the project mission, and that the > project proposal includes a reasonable technical governance structure > (i.e. maintainers/committers have been identified etc.). Alternatively, > we could have the existing Tech Board review, but the scope of that > board is just for DPDK (as defined at http://dpdk.org/dev#board) and it > doesn't cover the other sub-projects like SPP, Pktgen, DTS etc. If we > want to expand its scope then the composition would need to be changed > to be more inclusive of other projects, which would reduce its focus on > DPDK. Another option would be to have a higher level TSC like FD.io > does, but that seems like too much overhead for DPDK. In all > probability, new projects will be rare anyway (SPP is the only recent > one). > > 4. The Technical Governance section is just an outline and needs to be > populated. I think this should be done not just for DPDK but for the > other projects as well, even though they're smaller. > > 5. The IP Policy specifies at the moment that everything is 3-clause BSD > which isn't correct. It needs to be updated to reflect the parts of DPDK > that use other licenses. > > People can add comments directly to the document, or else comment via > email on the moving@dpdk.org > list. If there are any areas where we don't have a consensus then we'll > discuss and agree during our weekly meetings. > > > Tim IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confid= ential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, p= lease notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any= other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in = any medium. Thank you. --_000_AM5PR0801MB205136212FD9EF1E628E361A95A60AM5PR0801MB2051_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks for sorting this out Tim.


I have added my comments back to this document, plus added a few more.


/Matt

From: moving <moving-b= ounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.co= m>
Sent: 08 November 2016 10:15:04
To: moving@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
 
Internal restrictions on Google docs meant that th= ere was no way for me to give public access to the draft charter. So, Mike = Dolan has taken a copy and set it up in a new location: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48= FoGs/edit?usp=3Dsharing. Please use this version from now on.

The good news is that there's now public access so anybody can view and com= ment.

The bad news is that existing comments have not been preserved. I think it = was only Vincent, Matt and I that had made comments so far. I'll leave the = old version in place so we can still see the history, but Vincent and Matt = should feel free to comment again on the new version.

Apologies for the inconvenience.


Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moving [mailto:moving= -bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll,
> Tim
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 10:55 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
>
> I created a draft DPDK Project Charter based on the example charters > from other projects that Mike Dolan provided. It's far from complete,<= br> > but there should be enough there for people to review and comment.
>
> I've sent invites via Google docs to those who expressed an interest i= n
> working on the move to the Linux Foundation and who have email address= es
> that Google accepts (I think it rejects some people because Intel has<= br> > configured Google docs to only allow sharing with Google accounts). I'= ve
> attached a PDF for anybody else who wants to review. Alternatively you=
> can sign up for a Google account at:
> https://acc= ounts.google.com/signupwithoutgmail and then use the
> following link: https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1oCJMX-
> gA9LdubA40t-F31ntb7SeDBWCwDfTnkbl9tFM/edit?usp=3Dsharing (you'll need = to
> submit an access request the first time you try to open it).
>
> A lot of it is fairly generic and copied from other charters, but ther= e
> are some things to consider:
>
> 1. I've left the project Mission very broad because that seems to be t= he
> trend in other project charters. It's really just a high level stateme= nt
> of intent for the project.
>
> 2. I've assumed for now that we'll have two membership levels, althoug= h
> we'll need to decide that when we have a better idea of budget and
> likely members. For now, this is really just a placeholder. I did add<= br> > some thoughts on what the benefits of the two tiers would be. It's wor= th
> reviewing and considering those. The way it's written at the moment, > those who contribute to the budget have a say in how that budget is > spent, and that say is proportional to the size of contribution (so > higher tier members get a bigger say than lower tier members). It is > important to emphasise that this doesn't affect the technical aspects = of
> the project in any way - anybody can still contribute, become a
> maintainer, become a Tech Board member etc.
>
> 3. Besides DPDK we have a few sub-projects that are also hosted on
> dpdk.org. These are identified in section 2. There needs to be a
> mechanism for reviewing any new sub-projects that are proposed (e.g. i= f
> somebody wants to add another packet generator to DPDK). At the moment= ,
> I've specified that the Governing Board reviews new projects to make > sure that they're consistent with the project mission, and that the > project proposal includes a reasonable technical governance structure<= br> > (i.e. maintainers/committers have been identified etc.). Alternatively= ,
> we could have the existing Tech Board review, but the scope of that > board is just for DPDK (as defined at http://dpdk.org/dev#board) and it
> doesn't cover the other sub-projects like SPP, Pktgen, DTS etc. If we<= br> > want to expand its scope then the composition would need to be changed=
> to be more inclusive of other projects, which would reduce its focus o= n
> DPDK. Another option would be to have a higher level TSC like FD.io > does, but that seems like too much overhead for DPDK. In all
> probability, new projects will be rare anyway (SPP is the only recent<= br> > one).
>
> 4. The Technical Governance section is just an outline and needs to be=
> populated. I think this should be done not just for DPDK but for the > other projects as well, even though they're smaller.
>
> 5. The IP Policy specifies at the moment that everything is 3-clause B= SD
> which isn't correct. It needs to be updated to reflect the parts of DP= DK
> that use other licenses.
>
> People can add comments directly to the document, or else comment via<= br> > email on the moving@dpdk.org
> list. If there are any areas where we don't have a consensus then we'l= l
> discuss and agree during our weekly meetings.
>
>
> Tim

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachme= nts are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intende= d recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the c= ontents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank = you. --_000_AM5PR0801MB205136212FD9EF1E628E361A95A60AM5PR0801MB2051_--