From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
Received: from mail-ua0-f182.google.com (mail-ua0-f182.google.com
[209.85.217.182]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6822BB5
for <moving@dpdk.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 17:58:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-ua0-f182.google.com with SMTP id b35so37126527uaa.3
for <moving@dpdk.org>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=JAGU8iLdmkRaceqP/AYiGxxPxeO/sI1wO2gBO4uawek=;
b=DdG4cSZ7aOXBATc0JPT99bQgBuRPsZH8/Rw2+X4qjF+LyNOGJNdPwMAkBG4NHw3CRR
8e7q7jzkTEARnNFIlpPYdfojsEUviP9HsIiIn8qLpfvdxnHzMlbAykmI1h/g0P+ad3Jq
IQckP+tYqMMgoVkwygVGqZKjDZ0Orm5LOzD8M=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=JAGU8iLdmkRaceqP/AYiGxxPxeO/sI1wO2gBO4uawek=;
b=iwm8al0Nfog8oZPhvzxtDjsgTjXBq6Hif2WMk5n33D9WdjbBwUpwfFceckOC0aU3WA
ItwaM3cci7WbUw0KKA5mW9by9sKpBQiy2sNByL1n4mIdhfNbwpOtBqxQw+/KiXi5x17n
HNR+PLPaGlOPets4oJ1KWg3zXZVsbVVAsPsyWm30loA8Qa0JLsCa3LFTnycOmW2XJuBE
xjAypQywf0ykbZvv6MoRn9Wr64HpnZVBIKCpXxf+vMFzK3q6OZZswe309lfWCG+37eMU
Hv2s5D0oaN/VTs7P7WfFtL8wAdVObZ+vTBlJ4DyDw7yJZlR0RuCqyX8M+7k/iJFm5NzF
zESA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvd33Mx8MPE3y+JuuECnt1YrFvv51AuS23Dr82Efi9y1eaOJk9EDvfzPdf9oPXS1oYbH9EjzTsdxgEuybTWq
X-Received: by 10.159.49.27 with SMTP id m27mr3250601uab.178.1477933119177;
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.65.33 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760A4D3@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.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>
<AM5PR0801MB20517D17BFC3DDB2D9E1132A95AE0@AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
<CAFV=PSErbPpxdoWJmfWx0OPK3ebdhBfgS+KWhp=6+Ex_yMk_3w@mail.gmail.com>
<AM5PR0801MB20512CB8A2B0C1DD3AB23CEB95AE0@AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
<CAFV=PSGLUQKE3HW2aGmzU1dtE1t1Tyj8iLrz24xi7c8tOumhzg@mail.gmail.com>
<AM5PR0801MB205178F05CF85D844D706D1295AE0@AM5PR0801MB2051.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com>
<CAFV=PSHgjXQ0FcsCukU=1oN=cKHWVk8nxHsXv+W=4oDViqeZsg@mail.gmail.com>
<26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6760A4D3@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
From: Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 12:58:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFV=PSHnd8JFRfobf6Lz62zqhQTjRMiYE_Q+gXE2B9KWdwQMqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045ddf7492197805402c1e33
Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
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 16:58:40 -0000
--f403045ddf7492197805402c1e33
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
That makes a lot of sense Tim. I didn't realize (or forgot along the way)
that DPDK had this already.
---
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 Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:56 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
wrote:
> We do have a Technical Board (effectively a TSC with a different name) fo=
r
> DPDK in place already (see http://dpdk.org/dev#board). We deliberately
> populated this board based on the most significant contributors to the
> project, and made sure that it was balanced so that no single company had=
a
> majority. Current composition is 2 members from Intel, 2 from 6WIND, 1 fr=
om
> Cavium, 1 from Red Hat and 1 from Microsoft.
>
>
>
> My proposal would be that we keep this board in place rather than create =
a
> new TSC. I do think we need to more clearly define the scope of the board
> and how people are added to/removed from it, but I don=E2=80=99t see a re=
ason to
> change or replace it.
>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> *From:* moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael
> Dolan
> *Sent:* Monday, October 31, 2016 4:52 PM
> *To:* Matt Spencer <Matt.Spencer@arm.com>
> *Cc:* moving@dpdk.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance
>
>
>
> Ah, now I understand better what you were suggesting - thanks for that
> context.
>
>
>
> Typically we like to see a TSC with ideally 9-15 developers on it, ideall=
y
> no more than 3-5 from any one company. I say developers specifically to
> avoid implying it's good to send someone with no knowledge of the codebas=
e
> as a TSC rep. That's one pitfall of an artificially diverse TSC - some
> projects end up having to have a difficult conversation to remove TSC
> members that are not technically capable.
>
>
>
> Some Projects legislate in the Charter that no more than X people on the
> TSC from any one company. There are exceptions some Projects make for
> various good reasons at the time of formation, but I generally think of
> those ranges are healthy. You can't make companies contribute technical
> code and engineer time, so you're all benefitting from those putting a lo=
t
> of investment forward but at the same time trying to balance control. Eac=
h
> community is different but I try to guide people to the least common
> denominator basics they want to see, not legislate too much based on what
> the conditions are today - because those conditions can change quickly as
> projects evolve and the future will potentially bring technical
> alternatives.
>
>
>
> -- 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 Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Matt Spencer <Matt.Spencer@arm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael
>
>
>
> Thanks for the clarification. My initial mail on the subject was with a
> view to making the TSC more diverse. My first post had a breakdown of ho=
w
> the TSC would look if we took a pure meritocracy view of the world today.
> In this model, almost 50% of the vote in the TSC resides with one
> organisation, I was looking for ways to try and break what I saw being a
> 'virtual veto' within the governance of this project.
>
>
>
> Also, when I look at other projects such as OVS, there are only 16 member=
s
> of the TSC, with DPDK as it stands today there would be about 56. I am n=
ot
> sure that a leadership committee can work effectively at this size, so I
> was trying to propose ways in which we could fairly distribute technical
> ownership between the stakeholders of the project whilst making the TSC
> more effective.
>
>
>
> What does the LF view as being a healthy, diverse technical leadership?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matt
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* 31 October 2016 16:33:52
>
>
> *To:* Matt Spencer
> *Cc:* Vincent Jardin; Thomas Monjalon; moving@dpdk.org
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance
>
>
>
> Hi Matt, happy to. If you look at the third paragraph in my email I do
> refer to setting up a TSC in order to encourage/force company diversity o=
f
> contributors in a project. FD.io was setup with one initial project calle=
d
> VPP. In that case, it was 100% Cisco developers/engineers working on it.
> The TSC does not make any code decisions. The TSC becomes a place for
> discussing architecture, accepting new projects into FD.io or discussing
> future roadmap ideas, but the TSC does not make contributions - that
> happens in the projects/sub-projects through developers and engineers
> making contributions. So, yes, some projects do have the option for a top
> tier member to appoint a participant onto the TSC - but that's most often
> to encourage diversity of companies contributing to the project. If we ha=
d
> setup FD.io with 1 project VPP and 100% Cisco maintainers... that's prett=
y
> tough for anyone else to support. So we're artificially creating a more
> diverse structure so 1 company couldn't just make all the decisions and
> direct the future of the Project. Further, the TSC sets the rules for
> becoming a committer/maintainer.
>
>
>
> However, you should also take into account that while a top tier member i=
n
> FD.io can appoint a representative to the TSC, our TSC's also include the
> PTLs from the main projects. I stated this in my long email, but to put =
it
> bluntly here - in my view, putting top tier members on a TSC is tool to u=
se
> when you want to improve the corporate diversity of contribution. This is
> usually most beneficial in Projects that start with 1 company's codebase.
>
>
>
> Where we don't have a top tier membership appointing seats on a TSC, our
> projects typically default to the top level project Maintainers or some
> representation of Maintainers (e.g. an annual election) so that
> cross-project decisions can be made.
>
>
>
> Whether DPDK has a diverse enough contributor community is not something =
I
> can opine on - it does appear there are many companies involved in using
> DPDK but I've not analyzed the code contributions and where they're comin=
g
> from. I'll leave that to you all who probably know far better than I do.
>
>
>
> Does this help Matt?
>
>
>
> -- 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 Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Matt Spencer <Matt.Spencer@arm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael
>
>
>
> Can you give me some clarification then. I understand that we are not
> 'buying a vote', but if I look at the model for FD.io for example (
> https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/
> exhibit_a_-_fd.io_project_by-laws.pdf) , the Platinum level membership
> gets you a seat on the Board, plus in section 2.3.b '*designate one
> representative to serve as a member of the TSC*'. When the TSC is used
> to vote on architectural issues/direction of the project this really does
> look like 'buying a vote' to me?
>
>
>
> I hope you can understand why I am a little confused by your comments now=
?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Matt
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* 31 October 2016 16:07:03
> *To:* Matt Spencer
> *Cc:* Vincent Jardin; Thomas Monjalon; moving@dpdk.org
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance
>
>
>
> Hi everyone, it's great to see the discussion and thoughts. I'll point ou=
t
> a few nuances to how we run projects to help with expectations and
> structural understanding.
>
>
>
> First, for technical governance, the project/sub-projects always make
> technical decisions. There is no option to "buy a vote" - you "vote" with
> contributions, technical merit and becoming a committer/maintainer over
> time based on prior contribution and technical leadership.
>
>
>
> Some Projects do setup a TSC ("Technical Steering Committee") that
> oversees the Project structure (e.g. sub-projects, modules, etc), the
> technical community (e.g. elevating new Maintainers/Committers) and any
> technical policies / rules (e.g. tabs vs spacing, release timelines and
> milestones, etc). Some Projects do give funders a role on the TSC, but th=
at
> varies widely and we try to avoid it if a community already has a diverse
> technical contribution community. It's generally most helpful when starti=
ng
> a Project based entirely on 1 company's codebase and it gives others a sa=
y
> to ensure it's neutral while new committers are ramping up/learning the
> codebase.
>
>
>
> Second, we do host projects that do not raise any funds at all. They're
> projects we'll host for LF members if there's a community interested in i=
t.
> However, please understand up front that those projects receives no
> resources from the LF. E.g. we don't run an OVS infrastructure for CI. Th=
e
> LF simply becomes the neutral home for key community assets like the
> trademark and domain so 1 participant in the community doesn't control
> everything. Please understand the LF is a non-profit and we receive funds
> from various projects but those funds are for those projects and we can't
> take funds from some other effort and apply them to DPDK - our auditors a=
nd
> members of the other projects we took funds from would not be happy to sa=
y
> the least.
>
>
>
> Third, when there is funding involved in a project, we typically setup a
> Governing Board that owns responsibility for how to spend the funding. Th=
e
> Governing Board does not make technical decisions or tell the technical
> projects what to do. The Governing Board is simply for those contributing
> funds to have a say in how those funds are spent. Often some projects wil=
l
> also setup the Governing Board to work on any marketing or legal topics a=
s
> well. Ultimately the LF will not be making decisions on how Project funds
> are spent, so we rely on the funders to make those decisions.
>
>
>
> Typically there's a single or multi-tier membership structure. If
> multi-tier, the top tier usually gets an automatic seat on the Governing
> Board and a lower tier usually has a representation model (e.g. 1 seat pe=
r
> every X lower tier members). Typically the ratio is based on roughly what
> the contribution of X is relative to the higher tier members. E.g. if
> there's a top tier "Premier" at $50k/year and a lower tier "General" and =
it
> has a blended average of $5k/year, then there would be 1 General Member
> seat for ever 10 General Members to roughly equal what the Premier Member=
s
> are paying.
>
>
>
> Note that this investment at any level does not "buy" technical decisions=
.
> Members who contribute funds do so to make sure there is something they
> want available for the community (e.g. if build/CI infrastructure is
> desired). What they get is a leveraged investment - e.g. they're not payi=
ng
> to build the entire infrastructure themselves, but sharing the cost with
> others. Typically a "hook" is to have a logo or something available to sh=
ow
> your company is a "DPDK Project Member" or "Sponsor" and then to have an
> opportunity to be on the Governing Board.
>
>
>
> Without the funding, the community resources would not exist or would hav=
e
> to be provided by someone in the community unilaterally. Node.js for
> example receives a lot of contributions of various resources (e.g. CDN) f=
or
> free from members of their ecosystem - which means they can raise a much
> lower amount in membership fees. And for some communities like OVS, they
> really don't need any public community resources other than GitHub and a
> webpage - and that's just fine for them.
>
>
>
> I apologize for the length, but hopefully this will be helpful in guiding
> discussions about how LF Projects are structured and some of the rational=
e
> behind it.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> 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 Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Matt Spencer <Matt.Spencer@arm.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the responses. I'm really looking forward to the debate later
> today!
>
>
>
> One point I would raise, and it is one that Thomas picked up on a bit. I
> don't think we can have a pure meritocracy /and/ expect some of the
> membership to pay to support the project management. I am going to have =
a
> very hard time explaining to my exec why we should be spending $$$ on DPD=
K
> when there is no clear benefit to membership.
>
>
>
> Comparisons have ben made to the OVS project, which is fine, but OVS does
> not 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
> have
>
> 1 - a pure meritocracy - ie the governance does not change and I believe
> we are in the same position as we are today
>
> 2 - Something a bit more like FD.io, with paid membership and paid acces=
s
> 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
> =C3=A9crit :
>
> > 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 provide=
s
> > 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 pa=
ce
> > 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
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy th=
e
> information in any medium. Thank you.
>
>
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy th=
e
> information in any medium. Thank you.
>
>
>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy th=
e
> information in any medium. Thank you.
>
>
>
--f403045ddf7492197805402c1e33
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr">That makes a lot of sense Tim. I didn't realize (or fo=
rgot along the way) that DPDK had this already.=C2=A0</div><div class=3D"gm=
ail_extra"><br clear=3D"all"><div><div class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smart=
mail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div d=
ir=3D"ltr"><div><div dir=3D"ltr">
<p><font size=3D"2">---<br>Mike Dolan<br>VP of Strategic Programs<br>The Li=
nux Foundation<br>Office: +1.330.460.3250 =C2=A0=C2=A0Cell: +1.440.552.5322=
=C2=A0Skype: michaelkdolan<br><a href=3D"mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org=
" target=3D"_blank">mdolan@linuxfoundation.org</a><br>---</font></p></div><=
/div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:56 PM, O'Dris=
coll, Tim <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com" =
target=3D"_blank">tim.odriscoll@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockqu=
ote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc s=
olid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang=3D"EN-US" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple">
<div class=3D"m_-5675950993922252584WordSection1">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">We do have a Technical Board (effecti=
vely a TSC with a different name) for DPDK in place already (see
<a href=3D"http://dpdk.org/dev#board" target=3D"_blank">http://dpdk.org/dev=
#board</a>). We deliberately populated this board based on the most signifi=
cant contributors to the project, and made sure that it was balanced so tha=
t no single company had a majority. Current composition
is 2 members from Intel, 2 from 6WIND, 1 from Cavium, 1 from Red Hat and 1=
from Microsoft.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">My proposal would be that we keep thi=
s board in place rather than create a new TSC. I do think we need to more c=
learly define the scope of the board and how people
are added to/removed from it, but I don=E2=80=99t see a reason to change o=
r replace it.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"><br>
<br>
Tim<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a name=3D"m_-5675950993922252584__MailEndCompose"><=
span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;c=
olor:#1f497d"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></a></p>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in =
4.0pt">
<div>
<div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in =
0in 0in">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><a name=3D"m_-5675950993922252584______replyseparato=
r"></a><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",s=
ans-serif">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:&quo=
t;Calibri",sans-serif"> moving [mailto:<a href=3D"mailto:moving-bounce=
s@dpdk.org" target=3D"_blank">moving-bounces@dpdk.<wbr>org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Michael Dolan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, October 31, 2016 4:52 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Matt Spencer <<a href=3D"mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com" target=
=3D"_blank">Matt.Spencer@arm.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:moving@dpdk.org" target=3D"_blank">moving@dpdk=
.org</a></span></p><div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance<u></u=
><u></u></div></div><p></p>
</div>
</div><div><div class=3D"h5">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Ah, now I understand better what you were suggesting=
- thanks for that context.=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Typically we like to see a TSC with ideally 9-15 dev=
elopers on it, ideally no more than 3-5 from any one company. I say develop=
ers specifically to avoid implying it's good to send someone with no kn=
owledge of the codebase as a TSC rep.
That's one pitfall of an artificially diverse TSC - some projects end =
up having to have a difficult conversation to remove TSC members that are n=
ot technically capable.=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Some Projects legislate in the Charter that no more =
than X people on the TSC from any one company. There are exceptions some Pr=
ojects make for various good reasons at the time of formation, but I genera=
lly think of those ranges are healthy.
You can't make companies contribute technical code and engineer time, =
so you're all benefitting from those putting a lot of investment forwar=
d but at the same time trying to balance control. Each community is differe=
nt but I try to guide people to the least
common denominator basics they want to see, not legislate too much based o=
n what the conditions are today - because those conditions can change quick=
ly as projects evolve and the future will potentially bring technical alter=
natives.<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-- Mike<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br clear=3D"all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt">---<br>
Mike Dolan<br>
VP of Strategic Programs<br>
The Linux Foundation<br>
Office: <a href=3D"tel:%2B1.330.460.3250" value=3D"+13304603250" target=3D"=
_blank">+1.330.460.3250</a> =C2=A0=C2=A0Cell: <a href=3D"tel:%2B1.440.552.5=
322" value=3D"+14405525322" target=3D"_blank">+1.440.552.5322</a> =C2=A0Sky=
pe: michaelkdolan<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">mdolan@linu=
xfoundation.org</a><br>
---</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Matt Spencer <<=
a href=3D"mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com" target=3D"_blank">Matt.Spencer@arm.c=
om</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0i=
n 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div id=3D"m_-5675950993922252584m_7617546286613196568divtagdefaultwrapper"=
>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">H=
i Michael<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">T=
hanks for the clarification.=C2=A0 My initial mail on the subject was with =
a view to making the TSC more diverse.=C2=A0 My first post had a breakdown =
of how the TSC would look if we took a pure meritocracy
view of the world today.=C2=A0 In this model, almost 50% of the vote in th=
e TSC resides with one organisation, I was looking for ways to try and brea=
k what I saw being a 'virtual veto' within the =C2=A0governance of =
this project.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">A=
lso, when I look at other projects such as OVS, there are only 16 members o=
f the TSC, with DPDK as it stands today there would be about 56.=C2=A0 I am=
not sure that a leadership committee can work effectively
at this size, so I was trying to propose ways in which we could fairly dis=
tribute technical ownership between the stakeholders of the project whilst =
making the TSC more effective.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">W=
hat does the LF view as being a healthy, diverse technical leadership?<u></=
u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">R=
egards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">M=
att<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div class=3D"MsoNormal" align=3D"center" style=3D"text-align:center">
<hr size=3D"2" width=3D"98%" align=3D"center">
</div>
<div id=3D"m_-5675950993922252584m_7617546286613196568divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"=
;Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-=
size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Michae=
l Dolan <<a href=3D"mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"=
>mdolan@linuxfoundation.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 31 October 2016 16:33:52<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<b>To:</b> Matt Spencer<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Vincent Jardin; Thomas Monjalon; <a href=3D"mailto:moving@dpdk.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank">
moving@dpdk.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance<u></u=
><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi Matt, happy to. If you look at the third paragrap=
h in my email I do refer to setting up a TSC in order to encourage/force co=
mpany diversity of contributors in a project. FD.io was setup with one init=
ial project called VPP. In that case,
it was 100% Cisco developers/engineers working on it. The TSC does not mak=
e any code decisions. The TSC becomes a place for discussing architecture, =
accepting new projects into FD.io or discussing future roadmap ideas, but t=
he TSC does not make contributions
- that happens in the projects/sub-projects through developers and enginee=
rs making contributions. So, yes, some projects do have the option for a to=
p tier member to appoint a participant onto the TSC - but that's most o=
ften to encourage diversity of companies
contributing to the project. If we had setup FD.io with 1 project VPP and =
100% Cisco maintainers... that's pretty tough for anyone else to suppor=
t. So we're artificially creating a more diverse structure so 1 company=
couldn't just make all the decisions and
direct the future of the Project. Further, the TSC sets the rules for beco=
ming a committer/maintainer.=C2=A0
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">However, you should also take into account that whil=
e a top tier member in FD.io can appoint a representative to the TSC, our T=
SC's also include the PTLs from the main projects.=C2=A0 I stated this =
in my long email, but to put it bluntly here
- in my view, putting top tier members on a TSC is tool to use when you wa=
nt to improve the corporate diversity of contribution. This is usually most=
beneficial in Projects that start with 1 company's codebase.=C2=A0<u><=
/u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Where we don't have a top tier membership appoin=
ting seats on a TSC, our projects typically default to the top level projec=
t Maintainers or some representation of Maintainers (e.g. an annual electio=
n) so that cross-project decisions can
be made.=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Whether DPDK has a diverse enough contributor commun=
ity is not something I can opine on - it does appear there are many compani=
es involved in using DPDK but I've not analyzed the code contributions =
and where they're coming from. I'll leave
that to you all who probably know far better than I do.=C2=A0<u></u><u></u=
></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Does this help Matt?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">-- Mike<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br clear=3D"all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt">---<br>
Mike Dolan<br>
VP of Strategic Programs<br>
The Linux Foundation<br>
Office: <a href=3D"tel:%2B1.330.460.3250" target=3D"_blank">+1.330.460.3250=
</a> =C2=A0=C2=A0Cell:
<a href=3D"tel:%2B1.440.552.5322" target=3D"_blank">+1.440.552.5322</a> =C2=
=A0Skype: michaelkdolan<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">mdolan@linu=
xfoundation.org</a><br>
---</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Matt Spencer <<=
a href=3D"mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com" target=3D"_blank">Matt.Spencer@arm.c=
om</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0i=
n 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div id=3D"m_-5675950993922252584m_7617546286613196568m_-56030151295504116d=
ivtagdefaultwrapper">
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">H=
i Michael<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">C=
an you give me some clarification then.=C2=A0 I understand that we are not =
'buying a vote', but if I look at the model for FD.io for example (=
<a href=3D"https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/pages/files/exhibit_a_-_fd.=
io_project_by-laws.pdf" target=3D"_blank">https://fd.io/sites/<wbr>cpstanda=
rd/files/pages/files/<wbr>exhibit_a_-_fd.io_project_by-<wbr>laws.pdf</a>)=
=C2=A0,
the Platinum level membership gets you a seat on the Board, plus in sectio=
n 2.3.b '<i>designate one representative to serve as a member of the TS=
C</i>'.=C2=A0 When the TSC is used to vote on architectural issues/dire=
ction of the project this really does look like
'buying a vote' to me?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I=
hope you can understand why I am a little confused by your comments now?<u=
></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">R=
egards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">M=
att<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div class=3D"MsoNormal" align=3D"center" style=3D"text-align:center">
<hr size=3D"2" width=3D"98%" align=3D"center">
</div>
<div id=3D"m_-5675950993922252584m_7617546286613196568m_-56030151295504116d=
ivRplyFwdMsg">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"=
;Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-=
size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Michae=
l Dolan <<a href=3D"mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank"=
>mdolan@linuxfoundation.org</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 31 October 2016 16:07:03<br>
<b>To:</b> Matt Spencer<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Vincent Jardin; Thomas Monjalon; <a href=3D"mailto:moving@dpdk.o=
rg" target=3D"_blank">
moving@dpdk.org</a> <u></u><u></u></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca=
libri",sans-serif;color:black"><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance<u></u=
><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Hi everyone, it's great to see the discussion an=
d thoughts. I'll point out a few nuances to how we run projects to help=
with expectations and structural understanding.=C2=A0
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">First, for technical governance, the project/sub-pro=
jects always make technical decisions. There is no option to "buy a vo=
te" - you "vote" with contributions, technical merit and bec=
oming a committer/maintainer over time based on prior
contribution and technical leadership.=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Some Projects do setup a TSC ("Technical Steeri=
ng Committee") that oversees the Project structure (e.g. sub-projects,=
modules, etc), the technical community (e.g. elevating new Maintainers/Com=
mitters) and any technical policies / rules
(e.g. tabs vs spacing, release timelines and milestones, etc). Some Projec=
ts do give funders a role on the TSC, but that varies widely and we try to =
avoid it if a community already has a diverse technical contribution commun=
ity. It's generally most helpful
when starting a Project based entirely on 1 company's codebase and it =
gives others a say to ensure it's neutral while new committers are ramp=
ing up/learning the codebase.=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Second, we do host projects that do not raise any fu=
nds at all. They're projects we'll host for LF members if there'=
;s a community interested in it. However, please understand up front that t=
hose projects receives no resources from the LF.
E.g. we don't run an OVS infrastructure for CI. The LF simply becomes =
the neutral home for key community assets like the trademark and domain so =
1 participant in the community doesn't control everything. Please under=
stand the LF is a non-profit and we receive
funds from various projects but those funds are for those projects and we =
can't take funds from some other effort and apply them to DPDK - our au=
ditors and members of the other projects we took funds from would not be ha=
ppy to say the least.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Third, when there is funding involved in a project, =
we typically setup a Governing Board that owns responsibility for how to sp=
end the funding. The Governing Board does not make technical decisions or t=
ell the technical projects what to
do. The Governing Board is simply for those contributing funds to have a s=
ay in how those funds are spent. Often some projects will also setup the Go=
verning Board to work on any marketing or legal topics as well. Ultimately =
the LF will not be making decisions
on how Project funds are spent, so we rely on the funders to make those de=
cisions.=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Typically there's a single or multi-tier members=
hip structure. If multi-tier, the top tier usually gets an automatic seat o=
n the Governing Board and a lower tier usually has a representation model (=
e.g. 1 seat per every X lower tier members).
Typically the ratio is based on roughly what the contribution of X is rela=
tive to the higher tier members. E.g. if there's a top tier "Premi=
er" at $50k/year and a lower tier "General" and it has a ble=
nded average of $5k/year, then there would be 1 General
Member seat for ever 10 General Members to roughly equal what the Premier =
Members are paying.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Note that this investment at any level does not &quo=
t;buy" technical decisions. Members who contribute funds do so to make=
sure there is something they want available for the community (e.g. if bui=
ld/CI infrastructure is desired). What they
get is a leveraged investment - e.g. they're not paying to build the e=
ntire infrastructure themselves, but sharing the cost with others. Typicall=
y a "hook" is to have a logo or something available to show your =
company is a "DPDK Project Member" or "Sponsor"
and then to have an opportunity to be on the Governing Board.=C2=A0<u></u>=
<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Without the funding, the community resources would n=
ot exist or would have to be provided by someone in the community unilatera=
lly. Node.js for example receives a lot of contributions of various resourc=
es (e.g. CDN) for free from members
of their ecosystem - which means they can raise a much lower amount in mem=
bership fees. And for some communities like OVS, they really don't need=
any public community resources other than GitHub and a webpage - and that&=
#39;s just fine for them.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">I apologize for the length, but hopefully this will =
be helpful in guiding discussions about how LF Projects are structured and =
some of the rationale behind it.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">Mike<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><br clear=3D"all">
<u></u><u></u></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt">---<br>
Mike Dolan<br>
VP of Strategic Programs<br>
The Linux Foundation<br>
Office: <a href=3D"tel:%2B1.330.460.3250" target=3D"_blank">+1.330.460.3250=
</a> =C2=A0=C2=A0Cell:
<a href=3D"tel:%2B1.440.552.5322" target=3D"_blank">+1.440.552.5322</a> =C2=
=A0Skype: michaelkdolan<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">mdolan@linu=
xfoundation.org</a><br>
---</span><u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Matt Spencer <<=
a href=3D"mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com" target=3D"_blank">Matt.Spencer@arm.c=
om</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0i=
n 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<div id=3D"m_-5675950993922252584m_7617546286613196568m_-56030151295504116m=
_2706980808771478208x_divtagdefaultwrapper">
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">T=
hanks for the responses.=C2=A0 I'm really looking forward to the debate=
later today!<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">O=
ne point I would raise, and it is one that Thomas picked up on a bit.=C2=A0=
I don't think we can have a pure meritocracy /and/ expect some of the =
membership to pay to support the project management.=C2=A0
I am going to have a very hard time explaining to my exec why we should be=
spending $$$ on DPDK when there is no clear benefit to membership.<u></u><=
u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">C=
omparisons have ben made to the OVS project, which is fine, but OVS does no=
t have any membership costs (as far as I can see) and LF host this project =
for free.<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">I=
don't think we can have both of these positions hold true.=C2=A0 We ei=
ther have<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">=
=C2=A01 - a=C2=A0pure=C2=A0meritocracy - ie the governance does not change =
and I believe we are in the same position as we are today<u></u><u></u></sp=
an></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">=
=C2=A02 - Something a bit more like FD.io, with paid membership and paid ac=
cess to a board/TSC<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">R=
egards<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"><=
u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></span></p>
<p><span style=3D"font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">M=
att<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
<div class=3D"MsoNormal" align=3D"center" style=3D"text-align:center">
<hr size=3D"2" width=3D"98%" align=3D"center">
</div>
<div id=3D"m_-5675950993922252584m_7617546286613196568m_-56030151295504116m=
_2706980808771478208x_divRplyFwdMsg">
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span style=3D"font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"=
;Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span style=3D"font-=
size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black"> Vincen=
t Jardin <<a href=3D"mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com" target=3D"_blank">=
vincent.jardin@6wind.com</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 28 October 2016 23:54:13<br>
<b>To:</b> Thomas Monjalon; <a href=3D"mailto:moving@dpdk.org" target=3D"_b=
lank">moving@dpdk.org</a>; Matt Spencer<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance</span=
> <u></u>
<u></u></p>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">=C2=A0<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u=
></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal" style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style=3D"font-s=
ize:10.0pt"><br>
Le 28 octobre 2016 9:22:43 PM Thomas Monjalon <<a href=3D"mailto:thomas.=
monjalon@6wind.com" target=3D"_blank">thomas.monjalon@6wind.com</a>> a
<br>
=C3=A9crit :<br>
<br>
> 2016-10-28 16:52, Matt Spencer:<br>
>> 1 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer<br>
>> As this stands today, that would give us 56 TSC members,<br>
>> with almost half of them from one company<br>
>><br>
>> 2 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer -<br>
>> to a maximum of 20% membership of the TSC<br>
>> This would ensure that no one company can 'own' the TSC -<=
br>
>> 56 committers, so max TSC membership from one company would be 11<=
br>
>><br>
>> 3 - Maximum one member of TSC per committing company,<br>
>> plus one TSC assignee per paid member<br>
>> This would keep the TSC to a manageable level, give companies<br>
>> an incentive to join, but not require membership to be on the TSC<=
br>
>><br>
>> 4 - Something else?<br>
>><br>
>> My current thoughts are with 3 because we should end up with a<br>
>> representative cross section of the stakeholders of the project,<b=
r>
>> whilst still incentivising membership of the foundation.<br>
><br>
> Thanks for sharing your view.<br>
><br>
> I'm an Open Source guy and I might lack some politician skills.<br=
>
> So please excuse me if I take the freedom to talk really frankly :)<br=
>
><br>
> First of all, this email thread was dedicated to the technical governa=
nce.<br>
> And Matt is introducing money in this topic by talking about incentive=
s.<br>
> I think it is a very interesting point that we must discuss.<br>
> From the beginning, everybody were saying that we must keep technical<=
br>
> governance and legal structure separate.<br>
> However one question has still no good answer: what is the incentive<b=
r>
> for contributing money in the structure?<br>
> Is money going to biase the desired meritocratic system?<br>
><br>
> My second comment is about having one company controlling the technica=
l<br>
> governance.<br>
> I won't enter into the number details, and it's true that Inte=
l provides<br>
> at least 50% of the contributions nowadays. Intel is also the biggest<=
br>
> contributor to Linux. No surprise.<br>
> I understand that a voice from ARM is requiring to mitigate this fact.=
<br>
> I would prefer ARM related companies working to achieve the same<br>
> level of commitment as Intel. They are increasing their contribution p=
ace<br>
> but may never really compete with a giant like Intel.<br>
> That's why I second Matt to say that we must give a chance to ever=
y<br>
> vendors to influence the technical decisions.<br>
> Introducing a membership threshold looks to be a good idea.<br>
><br>
> Having said that, I must state that the DPDK reality is a lot more<br>
> complex than a competition between vendors.<br>
> We are proving that a consensus based model works very well without<br=
>
> the need of a TSC or a board.<br>
> We can create such organization, but please keep in mind that it shoul=
d<br>
> not be really helpful in the day-to-day job.<br>
<br>
+2<br>
<br>
=C2=A0From contributions, meritocracy is applied.<br>
<br>
<u></u><u></u></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any=
attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not th=
e intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not discl=
ose the contents to any other person,
use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Th=
ank you.
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any=
attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not th=
e intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not discl=
ose the contents to any other person,
use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Th=
ank you.
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal">IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any=
attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not th=
e intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not discl=
ose the contents to any other person,
use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Th=
ank you.
<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><u></u>=C2=A0<u></u></p>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
--f403045ddf7492197805402c1e33--