DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>
Cc: "O'driscoll, Tim" <tim.o'driscoll@intel.com>,
	"moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:12:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFV=PSHQA+3HNV4HRziL0XzsxYOwyLRqgdAEUOEPYFrenMsXMQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52a853cd-5f32-16ef-1c73-0742a57c12ba@6wind.com>

[-- 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 --]

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-11 15:12 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-11 12:21 Vincent JARDIN
2017-01-11 15:12 ` Michael Dolan [this message]
2017-01-17 14:16   ` Jaswinder Singh
2017-01-17 20:10     ` Ed Warnicke
2017-01-17 22:28       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2017-01-17 23:46         ` Vincent JARDIN
2017-01-18 17:11           ` George Zhao
2017-01-18 17:14             ` Michael Dolan
2017-01-18 17:19               ` George Zhao
2017-01-18 18:47                 ` Vincent Jardin

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:
  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='CAFV=PSHQA+3HNV4HRziL0XzsxYOwyLRqgdAEUOEPYFrenMsXMQ@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=mdolan@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=moving@dpdk.org \
    --cc=tim.o'driscoll@intel.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

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	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

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.dpdk.org/inbox.dpdk.moving


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