From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <Matt.Spencer@arm.com>
Received: from EUR03-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
 (mail-eopbgr40052.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.4.52])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AF35921
 for <moving@dpdk.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:20:32 +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=Gu/Eewn4ibf7/bft3dNa5p2Sz+FLMbzCBRaquf7itRI=;
 b=IPmJsI1OCfuStFheu2R9NnuqfNxuiiJLJbUf1LbhYBB8W3AqNI9Fi/2PKK/zYWhsNKdRo5ipuYxhIxMvAlVq4t1NkCVI63BscdV/aXW1uDWP0/IenFwmSjqw0IBZNsQb2xXvNm+PA4zL0yPBF3Km0kk2VvIIhhrZw2k46akV8aw=
Received: from AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.141) by
 AM5PR0801MB2052.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.142) with Microsoft
 SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2,
 cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.679.12; Mon, 31
 Oct 2016 15:20:32 +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 15.01.0669.024; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:20:32 +0000
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>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance
Thread-Index: AQHSLsgejSOr3VBxk0mkwdhTbAlIkaC6h/qAgAMRp4CAAHQFjoAANhSAgAA7HYCABDamPw==
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:20:31 +0000
Message-ID: <AM5PR0801MB20517D17BFC3DDB2D9E1132A95AE0@AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAHFG_=UjcFHHWPwr-k64g7SgoSoT9vkEEuO6d0hzcXDiK8ouOA@mail.gmail.com>
 <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676091C7@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <AM5PR0801MB20515A4AA7B1B7CE2A9C9F0395AD0@AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
 <2677739.KbWyRmNgFH@xps13>,
 <1580d802a08.27fc.bb328046f2889bc8f44aafa891a44dd2@6wind.com>
In-Reply-To: <1580d802a08.27fc.bb328046f2889bc8f44aafa891a44dd2@6wind.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: d4c7c0ca-1aef-4c35-737e-08d401a1746d
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0801MB2052;
 7:dVpLVygFIRE1b/EZ8IuzkQMIHDIjcPRPbvyo9TXDq0F9Y4l40C0LR8ilvVwuK9csptVBzBZPJCFxlpja4SwpumAj87tGWZMBFb2UtYMRVKt0Ms+chmSD/yHYYiGu8ylaG4Krbv4T48yC/jiZA75nmhs5tTHDoZPdyGHzFLGwZOoloyc0949zLaD/B/m9oDNTz8zjJNuglsGCJ0xRC4yAE5pklOz3BpPwDeUuMmU0i6Bw+byIs8PppAuZMbmtlGQZslwKT+VVkOct56Vb+5qMfEKSqLYI5zyGYCzIpHtJo2x7SEZfUO9D4OzaCywBvwY7bEsY+M2XLx1oLEWR1m4hQUPoq+E+y+SQgQMfeREHoOo=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2052;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <AM5PR0801MB2052215BC1F70F9545F93E0595AE0@AM5PR0801MB2052.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(158342451672863)(100405760836317);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0;
 RULEID:(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026);
 SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2052; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2052; 
x-forefront-prvs: 01128BA907
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM;
 SFS:(10009020)(979002)(6009001)(7916002)(40434004)(54014002)(377454003)(189002)(51914003)(377424004)(199003)(86362001)(11100500001)(5002640100001)(10400500002)(101416001)(54356999)(76176999)(92566002)(50986999)(74316002)(586003)(102836003)(3846002)(16236675004)(6116002)(2900100001)(106356001)(81156014)(2906002)(8676002)(7846002)(5890100001)(93886004)(81166006)(7736002)(33656002)(2501003)(66066001)(7696004)(5001770100001)(97736004)(19625215002)(4001150100001)(3280700002)(3660700001)(122556002)(107886002)(68736007)(2950100002)(189998001)(76576001)(87936001)(19580405001)(105586002)(8936002)(106116001)(5660300001)(19580395003)(77096005)(9686002)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001);
 DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2052;
 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_AM5PR0801MB20517D17BFC3DDB2D9E1132A95AE0AM5PR0801MB2051_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: arm.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 31 Oct 2016 15:20:31.8172 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0801MB2052
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance
X-BeenThere: moving@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK community structure changes <moving.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/moving>,
 <mailto:moving-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/>
List-Post: <mailto:moving@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:moving-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/moving>,
 <mailto:moving-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 15:20:33 -0000

--_000_AM5PR0801MB20517D17BFC3DDB2D9E1132A95AE0AM5PR0801MB2051_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks for the responses.  I'm really looking forward to the debate later t=
oday!


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


Comparisons have ben made to the OVS project, which is fine, but OVS does n=
ot 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 hav=
e

 1 - a pure meritocracy - ie the governance does not change and I believe w=
e 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
=E9crit :

> 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 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_AM5PR0801MB20517D17BFC3DDB2D9E1132A95AE0AM5PR0801MB2051_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from text --><style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; pad=
ding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF-8">
<style type=3D"text/css" style=3D"">
<!--
p
	{margin-top:0;
	margin-bottom:0}
-->
</style>
<div dir=3D"ltr">
<div id=3D"x_divtagdefaultwrapper" style=3D"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 ha=
ve a very hard time explaining to my exec
 why we should be spending $$$ on DPDK when there is no clear benefit to me=
mbership.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Comparisons have ben made to the OVS project, which is fine, but OVS doe=
s not have any membership costs (as far as I can see) and LF host this proj=
ect for free.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I don't think we can have both of these positions hold true. &nbsp;We ei=
ther have</p>
<p>&nbsp;1 - a&nbsp;pure&nbsp;meritocracy - ie the governance does not chan=
ge 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=3D"-1" style=3D"display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id=3D"x_divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Calibri, sans-serif" =
color=3D"#000000" style=3D"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=3D"2"><span style=3D"font-size:10pt;">
<div class=3D"PlainText"><br>
<br>
Le 28 octobre 2016 9:22:43 PM Thomas Monjalon &lt;thomas.monjalon@6wind.com=
&gt; a <br>
=E9crit :<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,<b=
r>
&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 governa=
nce.<br>
&gt; And Matt is introducing money in this topic by talking about incentive=
s.<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<b=
r>
&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 technica=
l<br>
&gt; governance.<br>
&gt; I won't enter into the number details, and it's true that Intel provid=
es<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 p=
ace<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 shoul=
d<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 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.
</body>
</html>

--_000_AM5PR0801MB20517D17BFC3DDB2D9E1132A95AE0AM5PR0801MB2051_--