[dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[Vincent JARDIN]

Mike,

Following yesterday's call, the LF's website
   https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws
includes the fees.

Platinum
     US$ 500,000
Gold
     US$ 100,000
Silver
     US$ 20,000 (employee size greater than 5,000)
     US$ 15,000 (employee size between 500 and 4,999)
     US$ 10,000 (employee size between 100 and 499)
     US$ 5,000 (employee size <100)

There is no option for individuals (I do not know it it makes sense).

It is understood that there are three annual fees for DPDK to be cumulated:
   -   Annual's LF fee (see the bylaws)
   - + Annual's DPDK fee (TBD for both levels)
   - + Annual's DPDK lab fee (TBD)
  (- + DPDK events)

Feel free to correct if I am mis-interpreting something.

Thank you,
   Vincent

Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[Michael Dolan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3278 bytes --]

Hi Vincent, there's the Annual LF membership fee and the Annual DPDK
participation fee. If a company is already an LF member, then there's no LF
membership fee and it's just the annual DPDK participation fee.

As I understand it there's been discussion that the DPDK Governing Board
might want to setup a test lab. I have no idea what the requirements or
cost of that would be and if it would be managed by a member (or members)
or the LF. Some projects have a member who steps up to run infrastructure
for a project, and some want it in the community's control. We don't care
where/how it's done but if the LF is asked to do it, we have to cover our
costs.

Regarding a lab, this group should also consider that FD.io already has a
test lab that does what I'm guessing the DPDK community wants - it would
seem to me a huge waste to have largely the same companies setup two labs
doing the same thing. This was a big part of my original suggestion of just
working on DPDK under FD.io, but as I understand it some were uncomfortable
with that. I'm not aware of the issues, but objectively looking at this
from a distance I still think that would be a very wise option to consider.
The infrastructure, the organization, funding and membership are already
there and I think DPDK could operate fairly well on its own with perhaps
some changes to the technical governance if there are concerns. I'll leave
my suggestion at that for now, but I know the people funding these projects
are not going to be pleased to hear they're being asked to fund two nearly
identical projects. If not merging the projects, then perhaps consider at
least splitting the cost of infrastructure or a test lab...

As for events, if the Governing Board decides to host an event, some
projects pay for events out of the membership fees and that's it, some have
sponsorships or attendance fees. That's all up to the group that makes the
decision.

The LF has no individual "membership". We have individual supporters (
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/members/individual-supporters) but that's
not the same as the legal standing of a member. We do also have an
associate membership for nonprofits, government agencies, and education
institutions.

I hope this helps clarify,

Mike



---
Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
mdolan@linuxfoundation.org
---

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Following yesterday's call, the LF's website
>   https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws
> includes the fees.
>
> Platinum
>     US$ 500,000
> Gold
>     US$ 100,000
> Silver
>     US$ 20,000 (employee size greater than 5,000)
>     US$ 15,000 (employee size between 500 and 4,999)
>     US$ 10,000 (employee size between 100 and 499)
>     US$ 5,000 (employee size <100)
>
> There is no option for individuals (I do not know it it makes sense).
>
> It is understood that there are three annual fees for DPDK to be cumulated:
>   -   Annual's LF fee (see the bylaws)
>   - + Annual's DPDK fee (TBD for both levels)
>   - + Annual's DPDK lab fee (TBD)
>  (- + DPDK events)
>
> Feel free to correct if I am mis-interpreting something.
>
> Thank you,
>   Vincent
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4465 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[Jaswinder Singh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3820 bytes --]

Ed,

Do you see any issues in DPDK-project re-using FD.IO …Lab/CI infrastructure.

This can save some dollars for all the participating companies.

-Jaswinder

From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Michael Dolan
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 8:43 PM
To: Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
Cc: O'driscoll, Tim <tim.o'driscoll@intel.com>; moving@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

Hi Vincent, there's the Annual LF membership fee and the Annual DPDK participation fee. If a company is already an LF member, then there's no LF membership fee and it's just the annual DPDK participation fee.

As I understand it there's been discussion that the DPDK Governing Board might want to setup a test lab. I have no idea what the requirements or cost of that would be and if it would be managed by a member (or members) or the LF. Some projects have a member who steps up to run infrastructure for a project, and some want it in the community's control. We don't care where/how it's done but if the LF is asked to do it, we have to cover our costs.

Regarding a lab, this group should also consider that FD.io already has a test lab that does what I'm guessing the DPDK community wants - it would seem to me a huge waste to have largely the same companies setup two labs doing the same thing. This was a big part of my original suggestion of just working on DPDK under FD.io, but as I understand it some were uncomfortable with that. I'm not aware of the issues, but objectively looking at this from a distance I still think that would be a very wise option to consider. The infrastructure, the organization, funding and membership are already there and I think DPDK could operate fairly well on its own with perhaps some changes to the technical governance if there are concerns. I'll leave my suggestion at that for now, but I know the people funding these projects are not going to be pleased to hear they're being asked to fund two nearly identical projects. If not merging the projects, then perhaps consider at least splitting the cost of infrastructure or a test lab...

As for events, if the Governing Board decides to host an event, some projects pay for events out of the membership fees and that's it, some have sponsorships or attendance fees. That's all up to the group that makes the decision.

The LF has no individual "membership". We have individual supporters (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/members/individual-supporters) but that's not the same as the legal standing of a member. We do also have an associate membership for nonprofits, government agencies, and education institutions.

I hope this helps clarify,

Mike




---
Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
mdolan@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
---

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com<mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com>> wrote:
Mike,

Following yesterday's call, the LF's website
  https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws
includes the fees.

Platinum
    US$ 500,000
Gold
    US$ 100,000
Silver
    US$ 20,000 (employee size greater than 5,000)
    US$ 15,000 (employee size between 500 and 4,999)
    US$ 10,000 (employee size between 100 and 499)
    US$ 5,000 (employee size <100)

There is no option for individuals (I do not know it it makes sense).

It is understood that there are three annual fees for DPDK to be cumulated:
  -   Annual's LF fee (see the bylaws)
  - + Annual's DPDK fee (TBD for both levels)
  - + Annual's DPDK lab fee (TBD)
 (- + DPDK events)

Feel free to correct if I am mis-interpreting something.

Thank you,
  Vincent


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8973 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[Ed Warnicke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4759 bytes --]

Jaswinder,

The fd.io infrastructure is for use by fd.io projects.

DPDK would be welcome as a fd.io project.

If the goal is for DPDK to move somewhere neutral and open with best of
breed governance and resourcing for open CI then becoming a fd.io project
might be the simplest route.   Most of the participants in discussions
around DPDK moving are already fd.io members.

fd.io’s governance is compatible with what we have been discussing.  Should
DPDK join fd.io it would, as all fd.io projects, maintain its own internal
technical governance.

Ed

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Jaswinder Singh <jaswinder.singh@nxp.com>
wrote:

> Ed,
>
>
>
> Do you see any issues in DPDK-project re-using FD.IO …Lab/CI
> infrastructure.
>
>
>
> This can save some dollars for all the participating companies.
>
>
>
> -Jaswinder
>
>
>
> *From:* moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael
> Dolan
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 11, 2017 8:43 PM
> *To:* Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
> *Cc:* O'driscoll, Tim <tim.o'driscoll@intel.com>; moving@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees
>
>
>
> Hi Vincent, there's the Annual LF membership fee and the Annual DPDK
> participation fee. If a company is already an LF member, then there's no LF
> membership fee and it's just the annual DPDK participation fee.
>
>
>
> As I understand it there's been discussion that the DPDK Governing Board
> might want to setup a test lab. I have no idea what the requirements or
> cost of that would be and if it would be managed by a member (or members)
> or the LF. Some projects have a member who steps up to run infrastructure
> for a project, and some want it in the community's control. We don't care
> where/how it's done but if the LF is asked to do it, we have to cover our
> costs.
>
>
>
> Regarding a lab, this group should also consider that FD.io already has a
> test lab that does what I'm guessing the DPDK community wants - it would
> seem to me a huge waste to have largely the same companies setup two labs
> doing the same thing. This was a big part of my original suggestion of just
> working on DPDK under FD.io, but as I understand it some were uncomfortable
> with that. I'm not aware of the issues, but objectively looking at this
> from a distance I still think that would be a very wise option to consider.
> The infrastructure, the organization, funding and membership are already
> there and I think DPDK could operate fairly well on its own with perhaps
> some changes to the technical governance if there are concerns. I'll leave
> my suggestion at that for now, but I know the people funding these projects
> are not going to be pleased to hear they're being asked to fund two nearly
> identical projects. If not merging the projects, then perhaps consider at
> least splitting the cost of infrastructure or a test lab...
>
>
>
> As for events, if the Governing Board decides to host an event, some
> projects pay for events out of the membership fees and that's it, some have
> sponsorships or attendance fees. That's all up to the group that makes the
> decision.
>
>
>
> The LF has no individual "membership". We have individual supporters (
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/members/individual-supporters) but that's
> not the same as the legal standing of a member. We do also have an
> associate membership for nonprofits, government agencies, and education
> institutions.
>
>
>
> I hope this helps clarify,
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Mike Dolan
> VP of Strategic Programs
> The Linux Foundation
> Office: +1.330.460.3250 <(330)%20460-3250>   Cell: +1.440.552.5322
> <(440)%20552-5322>  Skype: michaelkdolan
> mdolan@linuxfoundation.org
> ---
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 7:21 AM, Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Following yesterday's call, the LF's website
>   https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws
> includes the fees.
>
> Platinum
>     US$ 500,000
> Gold
>     US$ 100,000
> Silver
>     US$ 20,000 (employee size greater than 5,000)
>     US$ 15,000 (employee size between 500 and 4,999)
>     US$ 10,000 (employee size between 100 and 499)
>     US$ 5,000 (employee size <100)
>
> There is no option for individuals (I do not know it it makes sense).
>
> It is understood that there are three annual fees for DPDK to be cumulated:
>   -   Annual's LF fee (see the bylaws)
>   - + Annual's DPDK fee (TBD for both levels)
>   - + Annual's DPDK lab fee (TBD)
>  (- + DPDK events)
>
> Feel free to correct if I am mis-interpreting something.
>
> Thank you,
>   Vincent
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9017 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

> From: Ed Warnicke [mailto:hagbard@gmail.com] 
>
> Jaswinder,
>
> The fd.io infrastructure is for use by fd.io projects.  
>
> DPDK would be welcome as a fd.io project.
>
> If the goal is for DPDK to move somewhere neutral and open with best of breed governance and resourcing for open CI then becoming a fd.io project might be the simplest route.   Most of the participants in discussions around DPDK moving are already fd.io members.
>
> fd.io’s governance is compatible with what we have been discussing.  Should DPDK join fd.io it would, as all fd.io projects, maintain its own internal technical governance.

We discussed this in Dublin. There was a strong preference for keeping DPDK as an independent project. Dave summarized this in the minutes:

"I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the
project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset
changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io, OVS, and
OPNFV to do testing of DPDK.

Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a preference
for a stand-alone lightweight project"


Tim

Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[Vincent JARDIN]

Le 17/01/2017 à 23:28, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
> "I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the
> project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset
> changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io, OVS, and
> OPNFV to do testing of DPDK.
>
> Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a preference
> for a stand-alone lightweight project"

+1 too

DPDK is consumed by many projects and it was proven to be a successful 
model. By launching DPDK.org, 6WIND wanted to stimulate DPDK to be a 
reference for many consumers of IOs (FD.io, ovs-dpdk, moongen, ostinato, 
etc.) on any HW.

Since day 1 of DPDK.org, DPDK allows to sustain any innovations because 
of a strong intent to be agnostic.

Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[George Zhao]

Question: Will there be a f2f discussion of this topic during Open source leadership summit by Linux foundation?

Thanks,
George

-----Original Message-----
From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:46 PM
To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Ed Warnicke; Jaswinder Singh
Cc: Michael Dolan; Ed Warnicke (eaw); moving@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

Le 17/01/2017 à 23:28, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
> "I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the
> project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset
> changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io, OVS, and
> OPNFV to do testing of DPDK.
>
> Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a preference
> for a stand-alone lightweight project"

+1 too

DPDK is consumed by many projects and it was proven to be a successful 
model. By launching DPDK.org, 6WIND wanted to stimulate DPDK to be a 
reference for many consumers of IOs (FD.io, ovs-dpdk, moongen, ostinato, 
etc.) on any HW.

Since day 1 of DPDK.org, DPDK allows to sustain any innovations because 
of a strong intent to be agnostic.

Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[Michael Dolan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1652 bytes --]

I can explore finding a room if there will be enough people present. Who
plans to be there?

---
Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
mdolan@linuxfoundation.org
---

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@huawei.com>
wrote:

> Question: Will there be a f2f discussion of this topic during Open source
> leadership summit by Linux foundation?
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:46 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Ed Warnicke; Jaswinder Singh
> Cc: Michael Dolan; Ed Warnicke (eaw); moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees
>
> Le 17/01/2017 à 23:28, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
> > "I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the
> > project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset
> > changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io, OVS, and
> > OPNFV to do testing of DPDK.
> >
> > Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a preference
> > for a stand-alone lightweight project"
>
> +1 too
>
> DPDK is consumed by many projects and it was proven to be a successful
> model. By launching DPDK.org, 6WIND wanted to stimulate DPDK to be a
> reference for many consumers of IOs (FD.io, ovs-dpdk, moongen, ostinato,
> etc.) on any HW.
>
> Since day 1 of DPDK.org, DPDK allows to sustain any innovations because
> of a strong intent to be agnostic.
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2618 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[George Zhao]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2067 bytes --]

Cool,  count me in if we have quorum.

George

From: Michael Dolan [mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:15 AM
To: George Zhao
Cc: Vincent JARDIN; O'Driscoll, Tim; Ed Warnicke; Jaswinder Singh; Ed Warnicke (eaw); moving@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

I can explore finding a room if there will be enough people present. Who plans to be there?


---
Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
mdolan@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
---

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@huawei.com<mailto:George.Y.Zhao@huawei.com>> wrote:
Question: Will there be a f2f discussion of this topic during Open source leadership summit by Linux foundation?

Thanks,
George

-----Original Message-----
From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org<mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org>] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:46 PM
To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Ed Warnicke; Jaswinder Singh
Cc: Michael Dolan; Ed Warnicke (eaw); moving@dpdk.org<mailto:moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees
Le 17/01/2017 à 23:28, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
> "I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the
> project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset
> changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io<http://fd.io>, OVS, and
> OPNFV to do testing of DPDK.
>
> Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a preference
> for a stand-alone lightweight project"

+1 too

DPDK is consumed by many projects and it was proven to be a successful
model. By launching DPDK.org, 6WIND wanted to stimulate DPDK to be a
reference for many consumers of IOs (FD.io, ovs-dpdk, moongen, ostinato,
etc.) on any HW.

Since day 1 of DPDK.org, DPDK allows to sustain any innovations because
of a strong intent to be agnostic.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6139 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees

[Vincent Jardin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2334 bytes --]

No, it will fragment again and even more the communications. Please, use 
this mailing list if you need to voice some arguments.


Le 18 janvier 2017 6:20:07 PM George Zhao <George.Y.Zhao@huawei.com> a écrit :

> Cool,  count me in if we have quorum.
>
> George
>
> From: Michael Dolan [mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 9:15 AM
> To: George Zhao
> Cc: Vincent JARDIN; O'Driscoll, Tim; Ed Warnicke; Jaswinder Singh; Ed 
> Warnicke (eaw); moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees
>
> I can explore finding a room if there will be enough people present. Who 
> plans to be there?
>
>
> ---
> Mike Dolan
> VP of Strategic Programs
> The Linux Foundation
> Office: +1.330.460.3250   Cell: +1.440.552.5322  Skype: michaelkdolan
> mdolan@linuxfoundation.org<mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
> ---
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 9:11 AM, George Zhao 
> <George.Y.Zhao@huawei.com<mailto:George.Y.Zhao@huawei.com>> wrote:
> Question: Will there be a f2f discussion of this topic during Open source 
> leadership summit by Linux foundation?
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moving 
> [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org<mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org>] On Behalf 
> Of Vincent JARDIN
> Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:46 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Ed Warnicke; Jaswinder Singh
> Cc: Michael Dolan; Ed Warnicke (eaw); moving@dpdk.org<mailto:moving@dpdk.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees
> Le 17/01/2017 à 23:28, O'Driscoll, Tim a écrit :
>> "I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the
>> project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset
>> changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io<http://fd.io>, 
>> OVS, and
>> OPNFV to do testing of DPDK.
>>
>> Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a preference
>> for a stand-alone lightweight project"
>
> +1 too
>
> DPDK is consumed by many projects and it was proven to be a successful
> model. By launching DPDK.org, 6WIND wanted to stimulate DPDK to be a
> reference for many consumers of IOs (FD.io, ovs-dpdk, moongen, ostinato,
> etc.) on any HW.
>
> Since day 1 of DPDK.org, DPDK allows to sustain any innovations because
> of a strong intent to be agnostic.
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6176 bytes --]