From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-ve1eur01on0088.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.1.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C63F72 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 15:16:02 +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=7m9FH2nHWWTfkUcw7mZDl1i4DYBZ1UTeKJQnxEKHUdo=; b=kX/II7/GlVd5gQ9s97WzyO/ZVN2phdt0zkk96o0mhB/pNQBgu9ZDtmuK3oRTLgS5UPThXcvSu00g8sW3ojQnhhcwWDeJ8i5+dT7RNapFemSBq4iUg1LUeaQg2Nssw75Lhldh46e5DuiB3J5sPel+xzPFVBfwYhSxn+HsjBXN+q8= Received: from AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.141) by AM5PR0801MB2050.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com (10.168.158.140) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.747.13; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:16:01 +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 15.01.0734.014; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:16:01 +0000 From: Matt Spencer To: Thomas Monjalon , "O'Driscoll, Tim" , Dave Neary CC: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter Thread-Index: AdJErpkwZnWV/Q5qQV6nfTnACkYCAABKhJUAAB0nitAAAkbwgAABlw9q Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:16:01 +0000 Message-ID: References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67622717@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <583617A4.4000400@redhat.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623D9E@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>, <1540534.G53vByIeVs@xps13> In-Reply-To: <1540534.G53vByIeVs@xps13> 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: [80.229.1.75] x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 4383b564-8fb3-4103-01bd-08d414746b40 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001); SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2050; x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; AM5PR0801MB2050; 7:d5fOFPcKD6aU6yWj8zirCmMaIkwk7vX/sKdE/f2wgvcnikDhloFhcSXnRyVGihQ2NF8YE1KnpBs694BlmONQ8UJ6TfQ703hpv+neJkpnRLku3Zg9kKY1yd7zdwhaRGH9uVDoA8aeHZlAsCC6UZCgqxoXknrrL8pffbmanBZl3UQEZXUWQUSKZzuhHGMg4O04mTKCJ1cZJRT6bsDzpZLbMniEEZy85kzbXz+H1Q1h/js9mLd106VcYdw7qvFeRP2VV2YQ/FLnmqTNqBKFjohTmuc6Bb9nW855c/n2QXCp1CsVEnPovyXLEA/eu/7Skn73bb++Px7wXFr8YvyZJ9fPyiQD/FUp4InJ/6lY3o6gCUGJN+yrDdJa+h+v3jqujcbxKZBUL4yDRfWZQepPM96GlbwVbWJEL77ADvW+heXy4b2fxJ3iehXPu9hZZ+jjFi4qwhag5g8t1bou0wSRkgQZyA== x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6060326)(6040361)(6045199)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6061324)(6041248)(20161123558021)(20161123564025)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(20161123560025); SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2050; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2050; x-forefront-prvs: 0136C1DDA4 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(979002)(7916002)(199003)(12213003)(40434004)(189002)(57704003)(377424004)(93886004)(54356999)(81166006)(81156014)(8676002)(76176999)(106356001)(101416001)(9686002)(15650500001)(8936002)(92566002)(33656002)(105586002)(6116002)(122556002)(102836003)(2906002)(4326007)(189998001)(3280700002)(2900100001)(77096005)(86362001)(66066001)(3900700001)(3846002)(4001150100001)(3660700001)(5001770100001)(97736004)(68736007)(50986999)(19627405001)(5890100001)(6606003)(7736002)(7846002)(2950100002)(5660300001)(76576001)(7696004)(39410400001)(39380400001)(39390400001)(39400400001)(74316002)(229853002)(38730400001)(606004)(6506003)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:AM5PR0801MB2050; 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_AM5PR0801MB2051A7C999EC39820898EB6F95B60AM5PR0801MB2051_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: arm.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Nov 2016 14:16:01.3140 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: f34e5979-57d9-4aaa-ad4d-b122a662184d X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM5PR0801MB2050 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated 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: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 14:16:02 -0000 --_000_AM5PR0801MB2051A7C999EC39820898EB6F95B60AM5PR0801MB2051_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think I suggested a Contributor level member so that they could be alloca= ted official positions in the charter. It was also to track who had signed up to the CLA (or similar). At the time we were discussing Silver member access to the Governing Board = (in a 5-1 ratio, maximum 2 if I remember). The Contributor level member wa= s there to allow Contributor access to the board at a suggested 20-1 ratio = with some maximum, voted for by their peers. I think this level of membership is needed to track CLA? /Matt ________________________________ From: moving on behalf of Thomas Monjalon Sent: 24 November 2016 13:26 To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Dave Neary Cc: moving@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter 2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim: > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com] > > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software > > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being > > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software project > > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation in > > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the > > most part. > > The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership section.= At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a membersh= ip category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people felt this = was over-kill. > > Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think somethin= g further is required? I think the membership section must be part of the governing board section. So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing board. 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_AM5PR0801MB2051A7C999EC39820898EB6F95B60AM5PR0801MB2051_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think I suggested a Contributor level member so that they could be all= ocated official positions in the charter.


It was also to track who had signed up to the CLA (or similar).


At the time we were discussing Silver member access to the Governing Boa= rd (in a 5-1 ratio, maximum 2 if I remember).  The Contributor level m= ember was there to allow Contributor access to the board at a suggested 20-= 1 ratio with some maximum, voted for by their peers.


I think this level of membership is needed to track CLA?


/Matt


From: moving <moving-b= ounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.= com>
Sent: 24 November 2016 13:26
To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Dave Neary
Cc: moving@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated C= harter
 
2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@r= edhat.com]
> > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the softw= are
> > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into bei= ng
> > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software p= roject
> > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participati= on in
> > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for= the
> > most part.
>
> The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership secti= on. At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a membe= rship category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people felt th= is was over-kill.
>
> Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think somet= hing further is required?

I think the membership section must be part of the governing board section.=
So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing board.=
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_AM5PR0801MB2051A7C999EC39820898EB6F95B60AM5PR0801MB2051_--