DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Matt Spencer <Matt.Spencer@arm.com>
To: Vincent Jardin <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>,
	Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>,
	"moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:20:31 +0000
Message-ID: <AM5PR0801MB20517D17BFC3DDB2D9E1132A95AE0@AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1580d802a08.27fc.bb328046f2889bc8f44aafa891a44dd2@6wind.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4319 bytes --]

Thanks for the responses.  I'm really looking forward to the debate later today!


One point I would raise, and it is one that Thomas picked up on a bit.  I don't think we can have a pure meritocracy /and/ expect some of the membership to pay to support the project management.  I am going to have a very hard time explaining to my exec why we should be spending $$$ on DPDK when there is no clear benefit to membership.


Comparisons have ben made to the OVS project, which is fine, but OVS does not have any membership costs (as far as I can see) and LF host this project for free.


I don't think we can have both of these positions hold true.  We either have

 1 - a pure meritocracy - ie the governance does not change and I believe we are in the same position as we are today

 2 - Something a bit more like FD.io, with paid membership and paid access to a board/TSC


Regards


Matt

________________________________
From: Vincent Jardin <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
Sent: 28 October 2016 23:54:13
To: Thomas Monjalon; moving@dpdk.org; Matt Spencer
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance



Le 28 octobre 2016 9:22:43 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> a
écrit :

> 2016-10-28 16:52, Matt Spencer:
>> 1 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer
>> As this stands today, that would give us 56 TSC members,
>> with almost half of them from one company
>>
>> 2 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer -
>> to a maximum of 20% membership of the TSC
>> This would ensure that no one company can 'own' the TSC -
>> 56 committers, so max TSC membership from one company would be 11
>>
>> 3 - Maximum one member of TSC per committing company,
>> plus one TSC assignee per paid member
>> This would keep the TSC to a manageable level, give companies
>> an incentive to join, but not require membership to be on the TSC
>>
>> 4 - Something else?
>>
>> My current thoughts are with 3 because we should end up with a
>> representative cross section of the stakeholders of the project,
>> whilst still incentivising membership of the foundation.
>
> Thanks for sharing your view.
>
> I'm an Open Source guy and I might lack some politician skills.
> So please excuse me if I take the freedom to talk really frankly :)
>
> First of all, this email thread was dedicated to the technical governance.
> And Matt is introducing money in this topic by talking about incentives.
> I think it is a very interesting point that we must discuss.
> From the beginning, everybody were saying that we must keep technical
> governance and legal structure separate.
> However one question has still no good answer: what is the incentive
> for contributing money in the structure?
> Is money going to biase the desired meritocratic system?
>
> My second comment is about having one company controlling the technical
> governance.
> I won't enter into the number details, and it's true that Intel provides
> at least 50% of the contributions nowadays. Intel is also the biggest
> contributor to Linux. No surprise.
> I understand that a voice from ARM is requiring to mitigate this fact.
> I would prefer ARM related companies working to achieve the same
> level of commitment as Intel. They are increasing their contribution pace
> but may never really compete with a giant like Intel.
> That's why I second Matt to say that we must give a chance to every
> vendors to influence the technical decisions.
> Introducing a membership threshold looks to be a good idea.
>
> Having said that, I must state that the DPDK reality is a lot more
> complex than a competition between vendors.
> We are proving that a consensus based model works very well without
> the need of a TSC or a board.
> We can create such organization, but please keep in mind that it should
> not be really helpful in the day-to-day job.

+2

 From contributions, meritocracy is applied.


IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please 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.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5882 bytes --]

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" style="">
<!--
p
	{margin-top:0;
	margin-bottom:0}
-->
</style>
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<p>Thanks for the responses. &nbsp;I'm really looking forward to the debate later today!</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>One point I would raise, and it is one that Thomas picked up on a bit. &nbsp;I don't think we can have a pure meritocracy /and/ expect some of the membership to pay to support the project management. &nbsp;I am going to have a very hard time explaining to my exec
 why we should be spending $$$ on DPDK when there is no clear benefit to membership.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Comparisons have ben made to the OVS project, which is fine, but OVS does not have any membership costs (as far as I can see) and LF host this project for free.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I don't think we can have both of these positions hold true. &nbsp;We either have</p>
<p>&nbsp;1 - a&nbsp;pure&nbsp;meritocracy - ie the governance does not change and I believe we are in the same position as we are today</p>
<p>&nbsp;2 - Something a bit more like FD.io, with paid membership and paid access to a board/TSC</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Regards</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Matt</p>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> Vincent Jardin &lt;vincent.jardin@6wind.com&gt;<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 28 October 2016 23:54:13<br>
<b>To:</b> Thomas Monjalon; moving@dpdk.org; Matt Spencer<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance</font>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>
<font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText"><br>
<br>
Le 28 octobre 2016 9:22:43 PM Thomas Monjalon &lt;thomas.monjalon@6wind.com&gt; a <br>
écrit :<br>
<br>
&gt; 2016-10-28 16:52, Matt Spencer:<br>
&gt;&gt; 1 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer<br>
&gt;&gt; As this stands today, that would give us 56 TSC members,<br>
&gt;&gt; with almost half of them from one company<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; 2 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer -<br>
&gt;&gt; to a maximum of 20% membership of the TSC<br>
&gt;&gt; This would ensure that no one company can 'own' the TSC -<br>
&gt;&gt; 56 committers, so max TSC membership from one company would be 11<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; 3 - Maximum one member of TSC per committing company,<br>
&gt;&gt; plus one TSC assignee per paid member<br>
&gt;&gt; This would keep the TSC to a manageable level, give companies<br>
&gt;&gt; an incentive to join, but not require membership to be on the TSC<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; 4 - Something else?<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; My current thoughts are with 3 because we should end up with a<br>
&gt;&gt; representative cross section of the stakeholders of the project,<br>
&gt;&gt; whilst still incentivising membership of the foundation.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Thanks for sharing your view.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I'm an Open Source guy and I might lack some politician skills.<br>
&gt; So please excuse me if I take the freedom to talk really frankly :)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; First of all, this email thread was dedicated to the technical governance.<br>
&gt; And Matt is introducing money in this topic by talking about incentives.<br>
&gt; I think it is a very interesting point that we must discuss.<br>
&gt; From the beginning, everybody were saying that we must keep technical<br>
&gt; governance and legal structure separate.<br>
&gt; However one question has still no good answer: what is the incentive<br>
&gt; for contributing money in the structure?<br>
&gt; Is money going to biase the desired meritocratic system?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; My second comment is about having one company controlling the technical<br>
&gt; governance.<br>
&gt; I won't enter into the number details, and it's true that Intel provides<br>
&gt; at least 50% of the contributions nowadays. Intel is also the biggest<br>
&gt; contributor to Linux. No surprise.<br>
&gt; I understand that a voice from ARM is requiring to mitigate this fact.<br>
&gt; I would prefer ARM related companies working to achieve the same<br>
&gt; level of commitment as Intel. They are increasing their contribution pace<br>
&gt; but may never really compete with a giant like Intel.<br>
&gt; That's why I second Matt to say that we must give a chance to every<br>
&gt; vendors to influence the technical decisions.<br>
&gt; Introducing a membership threshold looks to be a good idea.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Having said that, I must state that the DPDK reality is a lot more<br>
&gt; complex than a competition between vendors.<br>
&gt; We are proving that a consensus based model works very well without<br>
&gt; the need of a TSC or a board.<br>
&gt; We can create such organization, but please keep in mind that it should<br>
&gt; not be really helpful in the day-to-day job.<br>
<br>
&#43;2<br>
<br>
&nbsp;From contributions, meritocracy is applied.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</span></font>IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please 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.
</body>
</html>

  reply index

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-25  8:58 [dpdk-moving] [Topics] Francois Ozog
2016-10-25 11:27 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-10-25 14:00   ` [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-26 10:21     ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-10-28  9:13       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-10-28 16:52         ` Matt Spencer
2016-10-28 19:22           ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-28 22:54             ` Vincent Jardin
2016-10-31 15:20               ` Matt Spencer [this message]
2016-10-31 16:07                 ` Michael Dolan
2016-10-31 16:18                   ` Matt Spencer
2016-10-31 16:33                     ` Michael Dolan
2016-10-31 16:43                       ` Matt Spencer
2016-10-31 16:52                         ` Michael Dolan
2016-10-31 16:56                           ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-10-31 16:58                             ` Michael Dolan
2016-10-31 18:31                             ` Jan Blunck
2016-10-31 19:41                               ` Vincent JARDIN
     [not found]                   ` <DB5PR04MB1605482F1C67F9B797EB9AE289A60@DB5PR04MB1605.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
2016-11-08  8:11                     ` Jaswinder Singh
2016-11-08  9:37                       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-20 14:41       ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-25 14:55 ` [dpdk-moving] [Topics] Dave Neary
2016-10-26 12:47 ` Dave Neary
2016-10-26 15:00   ` Francois Ozog

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=AM5PR0801MB20517D17BFC3DDB2D9E1132A95AE0@AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=matt.spencer@arm.com \
    --cc=moving@dpdk.org \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=vincent.jardin@6wind.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

DPDK community structure changes

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving/0 moving/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 moving moving/ http://inbox.dpdk.org/moving \
		moving@dpdk.org
	public-inbox-index moving


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.moving


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox