DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:39:08 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFV=PSFsFogPcb1CJ9=DhkpJzyo8CePQdGG6kP6S8cv=vaE_yg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67626AEE@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5001 bytes --]

Hi Tim, sorry I couldn't make it with a LF Board meeting conflict
yesterday. As for 1), most/all of our projects facing this issue decide to
go Apache 2. A CLA is less preferably particularly with the BSD license.
Where we do use a CLA on a project it's usually the same as the Apache
CCLA/ICLA and that combined with the BSD license will I'm fairly certain
not achieve what Linaro legal is probably concerned about.

My guess is the members here are 90% or more of the contributors and a
relicensing effort could be done within a reasonable timeframe. The project
could also start under the LF with all new contributions under the Apache 2
license which is compatible with all prior BSD contributions. Or you could
just required Apache 2 on any future contributions and keep the prior BSD
if the relicensing is not agreeable to others.

Just some thoughts on how other projects tackled this question. It would
probably be best if we push any further discussion on this to a small group
of your legal counsel as the various levers have different implications and
I'm uncomfortable continuing this discussion without your counsel being



On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:01 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>

> Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct any
> errors or to add additional details.
> Attendees: Dave Neary (Red Hat), Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Francois-Frederic
> Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh
> (NXP), Jerin Jacob (Cavium), Jim St. Leger (Intel), John McNamara (Intel),
> Keith Wiles (Intel), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim
> O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND). Note that there may have been
> others, but as people joined at different times it was difficult to keep
> track.
> Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things:
> Project Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-
> e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs
> Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin:
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html
> Minutes of October 31st call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000031.html
> Minutes of November 8th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000058.html
> Minutes of November 15th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000061.html
> Minutes of November 22nd call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000085.html
> Current technical governance, including composition of the Tech Board:
> http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html & http://dpdk.org/dev.
> 1. Discussed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) vs Developer Certificate
> of Origin (DCO)
> - Current process is to use a DCO.
> - Francois-Frederic proposed using a CLA. This is based on input from the
> Linaro legal team and some Linaro members who have indicated that not
> having a CLA prevents them contributing to or using DPDK.
> - Discussed what benefit they think they'll get from CLA. The main thing
> it adds is patent protection. This could be achieved in other ways, for
> example using the Apache 2.0 license. Neither solution would apply to
> existing DPDK code though so any benefit would only apply to new code.
> - Vincent asked if there are problems with other BSD licensed projects. We
> agreed to check with the Linux Foundation (Mike Dolan) to see if they have
> any guidance based on other BSD licensed projects. I'll ask Mike.
> 2. Discussed comments on project charter
> - Agreed that the Governing Board does not specify requirements for the
> Technical Board to implement. The two boards are peers. One can make
> suggestions to the other at any time, but these aren't requirements and
> don't have to be accepted.
> - Discussed how members are added to/removed from the Technical Board.
> Agreed that the TB approves adding/removing members. Agreed that the TB
> needs to consider technical contributions from the individuals and support
> for all architectures when making these decisions.
> - Discussed Dave's proposal for a representative of the technical
> community on the GB (in addition to the rep from the TB). Agreed not to do
> this and just to keep the single rep from the TB on the GB. Also discussed
> whether there should be a GB rep on the TB and agreed that this did not
> make sense.
> - For voting, agreed that the quorum for a meeting for either board is 50%
> of the members. Majority required to pass a vote is 50% of the total board
> except for: a) changes to the charter require 2/3 of the GB; b) licensing
> exceptions require 2/3 of the GB.
> - I've updated the charter (section 3 - Project Governance) to reflect
> these changes.
> Next Meeting:
> Tuesday December 6th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We'll focus
> on the comments on the Membership and Technical Governance sections of the
> charter, and also discuss CLA/DCO if we have more input/guidance on this
> from the LF.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6573 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-11-30 17:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-30 16:01 O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-11-30 17:10 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-11-30 22:08   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01  9:20     ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-12-01  9:40       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-11-30 17:39 ` Michael Dolan [this message]
2016-11-30 20:55   ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 17:40   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01 17:46     ` Ed Warnicke
2016-12-01 18:01     ` Michael Dolan
2016-12-01 18:41     ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 18:50       ` Dave Neary
2016-12-01 19:09         ` Francois Ozog
2016-12-01 19:44           ` Michael Dolan
2016-12-01 20:20             ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-01 20:47               ` Wiles, Keith
2016-12-01 21:33           ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-12-02  9:00             ` Francois Ozog
2016-12-01 20:33       ` O'Driscoll, Tim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly 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:

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAFV=PSFsFogPcb1CJ9=DhkpJzyo8CePQdGG6kP6S8cv=vaE_yg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=mdolan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=moving@dpdk.org \
    --cc=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).