From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f174.google.com (mail-yw0-f174.google.com [209.85.161.174]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93D31094 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:10:01 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yw0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w75so98340933ywg.1 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:10:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Tm64UeLV8E6TWZ4v+RAvK3scpTMWyGEwHWdreO+zU0g=; b=VPT1pdWIzAg1i+XuLueXLCiJiWeyxYigzGNrT82ZjBNe8BOkeVMqGqhn9+hsEmXBPq L5aiuOre6cHdKqSrRiWDgbZ9qTNGgavdZwF5C6W6bjFhvdA/V7YZMkqRsG5dr6m5sZxc vJs2nAwfbDoCMBBL+a2FDB8/aXlRHU0DEBKAAeHKNH039PDB3ZDrGvUSukoBuwfSwj5p DTeTBkby1X+wkh9GYLkXOCVsxz2HxAk+rjbyVpj5I+29yQDQD7rvjgrFZ2Sir1t0mrxS qpQeCpiQX+v1PQDHHa5N9V8uARmZSu8aGGiOpKFgQrz0Dc4lLaZopk8nel3YyOQe8nSy UASw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Tm64UeLV8E6TWZ4v+RAvK3scpTMWyGEwHWdreO+zU0g=; b=OljVllnsQ8L57IGpddmYW+fnKgPlX8WYg0vW5kq4ufPMmlBdMGRt/X9EruGGdKM9Dw r3isHHJD/fu4iW6LVYpks0NL4UU44C43vQCl3oZ+eRP2VsQTBXdWHrpiEmUt41OlWpp6 pzaIvViV5JOkmgHnBAmCCM4aLxKwAUwmh1LTDaebzBkIOOqcFZvZSPjfKvZd0qUM/N6M fIRTJwcSV0L6vHwTlSMZkuKD0rHK0DpBiZftYYh6JF82EIFROGOxqUV0pOwB6YYMmUk/ IcLyGCHpywOfXEaPLMx+aS3vdxV9FkyKf09xxX66M8E3dY2r5QO0D4mJapXDH5+rTVsC QDyw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIB5vApoQHceO0tdIPm4qP7Mm8xvHbtan8GuuMKkM30IxfBqALNLT22Kn2PeHbT8ztixkp5X8yJDbVWiw== X-Received: by 10.55.118.194 with SMTP id r185mr15056832qkc.153.1484683801124; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:10:01 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.200.53.225 with HTTP; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 12:10:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52a853cd-5f32-16ef-1c73-0742a57c12ba@6wind.com> From: Ed Warnicke Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 13:10:00 -0700 Message-ID: To: Jaswinder Singh Cc: Michael Dolan , "Ed Warnicke (eaw)" , "O'driscoll, Tim" , "moving@dpdk.org" , Vincent JARDIN Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05a07a91e33405464fe279 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] DPDK + Linux Foundation - summary of fees 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: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:10:02 -0000 --94eb2c05a07a91e33405464fe279 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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=E2=80=99s 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 wrote: > Ed, > > > > Do you see any issues in DPDK-project re-using FD.IO =E2=80=A6Lab/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 > *Cc:* O'driscoll, Tim ; 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 ju= st > working on DPDK under FD.io, but as I understand it some were uncomfortab= le > 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 conside= r. > 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 leav= e > my suggestion at that for now, but I know the people funding these projec= ts > are not going to be pleased to hear they're being asked to fund two nearl= y > 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 ha= ve > sponsorships or attendance fees. That's all up to the group that makes th= e > 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 > 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 cumulate= d: > - 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 > > > --94eb2c05a07a91e33405464fe279 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jaswinder,

The fd.io infrastructure is for use by fd.io= projects. =C2=A0

DPDK would be welcome as a <= a href=3D"http://fd.io">fd.io project.

If the = goal is for DPDK to move somewhere neutral and open with best of breed gove= rnance and resourcing for open CI then becoming a = fd.io project might be the simplest route. =C2=A0 Most of the participa= nts in discussions around DPDK moving are already = fd.io members.

fd.io<= /a>=E2=80=99s governance is compatible with what we have been discussing.= =C2=A0 Should DPDK join fd.io it would, as all= fd.io projects, maintain its own internal tec= hnical governance.

Ed

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:1= 6 AM, Jaswinder Singh <jaswinder.singh@nxp.com> wrote:=

Ed,

=C2=A0

Do you see any issues in DPDK-project= re-using FD.IO =E2=80=A6Lab= /CI infrastructure.

=C2=A0

This can save some dollars for all th= e participating companies.

=C2=A0

-Jaswinder

=C2=A0

From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org<= /a>] 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=

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

As I understand it there's been discussion that = the DPDK Governing Board might want to setup a test lab. I have no idea wha= t 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 w= ant 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.=C2=A0=

=C2=A0

Regarding a lab, this group should also consider tha= t FD.io already has a test lab that does what I'm guessing the DPDK com= munity wants - it would seem to me a huge waste to have largely the same co= mpanies setup two labs doing the same thing. This was a big part of my original suggestion of just working on DP= DK 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 dist= ance 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 goin= g to be pleased to hear they're being asked to fund two nearly identica= l projects. If not merging the projects, then perhaps consider at least spl= itting the cost of infrastructure or a test lab...

=C2=A0

As for events, if the Governing Board decides to hos= t an event, some projects pay for events out of the membership fees and tha= t's it, some have sponsorships or attendance fees. That's all up to= the group that makes the decision.=C2=A0

=C2=A0

The LF has no individual "membership". We = have individual supporters (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/members/individual-supporters)=C2=A0but that's not the = same as the legal standing of a member. We do also have an associate membership fo= r nonprofits, government agencies, and education institutions.

=C2=A0

I hope this helps clarify,

=C2=A0

Mike

=C2=A0

=C2=A0


---
Mike Dolan
VP of Strategic Programs
The Linux Foundation
Office: +1.330.460.3250 =C2=A0=C2=A0Cell: +1.440.552.5322 =C2=A0Skype= : michaelkdolan
mdolan@linu= xfoundation.org
---

=C2=A0

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

Mike,

Following yesterday's call, the LF's website
=C2=A0 https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws
includes the fees.

Platinum
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 US$ 500,000
Gold
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 US$ 100,000
Silver
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 US$ 20,000 (employee size greater than 5,000)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 US$ 15,000 (employee size between 500 and 4,999)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 US$ 10,000 (employee size between 100 and 499)
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 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:=
=C2=A0 -=C2=A0 =C2=A0Annual's LF fee (see the bylaws)
=C2=A0 - + Annual's DPDK fee (TBD for both levels)
=C2=A0 - + Annual's DPDK lab fee (TBD)
=C2=A0(- + DPDK events)

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

Thank you,
=C2=A0 Vincent

=C2=A0


--94eb2c05a07a91e33405464fe279--