From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ve1eur01on0066.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.1.66]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4645582; Tue, 8 Nov 2016 19:18:27 +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=D917MKUqDLhTe+t8qhF1I8y2ahqSvVovGYwzmr0z3p8=; b=C0kX60clmhzz/OjdYXeR/OkGXmyTnMnNf3ljto5xuGVONzDGYNKNAIqhDRPJXo2qd6LBM2PYkhnITju7w7gxtcmzACZJcic3OtddMqb8IjWeCA4ofQGno/MlZao+Hi3fvLNdPtiZO2rfTQESZcNAXHrRGUDdMdeLHs6QqnV8+ZM= 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 18:18:23 +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 18:18:23 +0000 From: Matt Spencer To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , Vincent JARDIN , "moving@dpdk.org" CC: "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter Thread-Index: AQHSObdnxodyD+oB5EeTdaKh3ZqnxKDPZLT+ Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:18:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760E51D@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <213281a6-6b14-f067-dca0-4b442557b05e@6wind.com>, <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760E5AC@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760E5AC@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: dd9e59b8-946a-4729-64fa-08d40803a049 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0801MB2051; 7:FUX1gTctILflM46usE7cvhPHnMKtiyOoTkPm0ZVSK+PoEjorPr1GEXDqoBd/RpRl3NvYOcvfl8jMCKXZRhbQG5c1Z535oF/S1Q0Vk6eeQucg3uY4CPAHUm4x62uSAnXxecO9mkMWcI1/Mqu/zJ29HBoqjWLK/JyL+vuSPuX8ylW/7SKIeuV+tXA80ExpQOgyFbGhCysB7E3xLe5RFuAnAlwmhTOb9bk4HBUGLxE0Vh3iIkxf9dCUiDn19ej4oQHlOMIpGy5Mxw2cBRkDvnKmpEPGDFs5I4ZU1q/IgdD+FQP2OqxAiuzwUtwHnz4pL8uXK8vXd6RUt2E+bpJKDh6vUN52K97v0FD+2eUl30q6tq4= x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2051; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(216315784871565)(228905959029699); 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)(7916002)(189002)(199003)(377454003)(40434004)(13464003)(33656002)(102836003)(4326007)(122556002)(561944003)(92566002)(3280700002)(7846002)(7736002)(3660700001)(19273905006)(9686002)(105586002)(2906002)(81156014)(7906003)(15395725005)(50986999)(106116001)(106356001)(77096005)(8676002)(2900100001)(54356999)(76176999)(8936002)(101416001)(76576001)(2501003)(87936001)(66066001)(189998001)(6116002)(5660300001)(97736004)(5001770100001)(3846002)(81166006)(561924002)(586003)(86362001)(68736007)(2950100002)(7696004)(5890100001)(74316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2051; H:AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A: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_AM5PR0801MB20516E1B9DF6B283C5897B2395A60AM5PR0801MB2051_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: arm.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 08 Nov 2016 18:18:23.2580 (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] [dpdk-dev] 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 18:18:27 -0000 --_000_AM5PR0801MB20516E1B9DF6B283C5897B2395A60AM5PR0801MB2051_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think we need a discussion about the levels of membership - possibly at n= ext weeks meeting? My feeling is that we need more than one level - One to enable contribution of hardware to the lab, as the lab will add = cost to the overall project budget - A second to enable contribution to the marketing aspects of the project= and to allow association for marketing purposes Calling these Gold and Silver is fine with me, but as I say, lets discuss t= his at next weeks meeting. Matt ________________________________ From: moving on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim Sent: 08 November 2016 03:57:36 To: Vincent JARDIN; moving@dpdk.org Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN > Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:41 AM > To: moving@dpdk.org > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter > > Tim, > > Thanks for your draft, but it is not a good proposal. It is not written > in the spirit that we have discussed in Dublin: > - you create the status of "Gold" members that we do not want from > Linux Foundation, As I said in the email, I put in two levels of membership as a placeholder.= The first thing we need to decide is if we want to have a budget and membe= rship, or if we want the OVS model with 0 budget and no membership. We can = discuss that at today's meeting. If we do want a membership model then we'll need to decide if everybody con= tributes at the same rate or if we support multiple levels. So, for now, th= e text on having two levels is just an example to show what a membership mo= del might look like. > - you start with "DPDK's first $1,000,000", it is far from the $O > that we agreed based on OVS model. That's just standard text that I see in all the LF charters. It's even in t= he OVS charter (http://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf) even though the= y have 0 budget. I assumed it's standard text for the LF. I'm sure Mike Dol= an can clarify. > > Please, explain why you did change it? > > Thank you, > Vincent 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_AM5PR0801MB20516E1B9DF6B283C5897B2395A60AM5PR0801MB2051_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think we need a discussion about the levels of membership - possibly a= t next weeks meeting?


My feeling is that we need more than one level

  - One to enable contribution of hardware to the lab, as the lab w= ill add cost to the overall project budget

  - A second to enable contribution to the marketing aspects of the= project and to allow association for marketing purposes


Calling these Gold and Silver is fine with me, but as I say, lets discus= s this at next weeks meeting.


Matt

From: moving <moving-b= ounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.co= m>
Sent: 08 November 2016 03:57:36
To: Vincent JARDIN; moving@dpdk.org
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@= dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:41 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
>
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for your draft, but it is not a good proposal. It is not writte= n
> in the spirit that we have discussed in Dublin:
>    - you create the status of "Gold" members = that we do not want from
> Linux Foundation,

As I said in the email, I put in two levels of membership as a placeholder.= The first thing we need to decide is if we want to have a budget and membe= rship, or if we want the OVS model with 0 budget and no membership. We can = discuss that at today's meeting.

If we do want a membership model then we'll need to decide if everybody con= tributes at the same rate or if we support multiple levels. So, for now, th= e text on having two levels is just an example to show what a membership mo= del might look like.

>    - you start with "DPDK's first $1,000,000"= , it is far from the $O
> that we agreed based on OVS model.

That's just standard text that I see in all the LF charters. It's even in t= he OVS charter (http= ://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf) even though they have 0 budget.= I assumed it's standard text for the LF. I'm sure Mike Dolan can clarify.

>
> Please, explain why you did change it?
>
> Thank you,
>    Vincent
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_AM5PR0801MB20516E1B9DF6B283C5897B2395A60AM5PR0801MB2051_--