DPDK community structure changes
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Francois Ozog <francois.ozog@linaro.org>
To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>, Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:09:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHFG_=Uxhoa78N9HVFY45F8uwSy9ZWR56_=Y2MSqkf3Z4=U8wA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722A66A1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6159 bytes --]


Thanks for the update.

I have missed a couple of calls and did not found notes on the following
topic: dpdk.org domain ownership.

I think i has been a discussion topic during Dublin and thought that Dave
Neary may have said (unsure) that it was assumed that the dpdk.org domain
ownership should be transferred to LF.

Was there a discussion/conclusion on this ?



On 11 January 2017 at 23:16, 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: Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Elsie Wahlig (Qualcomm), Erez Scop
> (Mellanox), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan
> Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), John Bromhead (Cavium), John
> McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Kevin Traynor (Red Hat), Mike Dolan
> (Linux Foundation), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Stephen Hemminger (Microsoft),
> Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND).
> 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
> Minutes of November 29th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-November/000099.html
> Minutes of December 6th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-December/000121.html
> Minutes of December 13th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-December/000124.html
> Minutes of December 20th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/
> moving/2016-December/000127.html
> Technical governance, including info on Maintainers and sub-trees:
> http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html & http://dpdk.org/dev.
> Reviewed the latest comments on the project charter. These were the
> significant discussion points:
> Do we need a clause to prevent gold members being outnumbered by silver
> members on the board?
> - There's already a <TBD> cap on the number of Silver members on the board
> in clause 3.1.2 ii, so this is already covered. We will need to decide on
> the <TBD> value during membership discussions.
> Should the Governing Board meetings be public? The reasons given
> (primarily by Mike and Ed) for not doing this were:
> - Legal issues. The GB may need to discuss legal issues which should be
> kept confidential. Attorneys will also not be willing to give opinions in
> public meetings. For some companies, their legal counsel will not allow
> them to participate in public board meetings.
> - Potential new members. The GB may need to discuss potential new members
> who may not have been contacted yet, or who may not want their interest in
> DPDK made public until their membership is finalized.
> - Confidential budget info. Budgets may contain confidential info such as
> salaries which should not be discussed/disclosed in public.
> We agreed to consider this again and agree at the next meeting. If there's
> no consensus then we'll need to vote.
> Should Tech Board meetings should be public?
> - Agreed that they should. The charter has been updated to reflect this.
> Should we have a Contributor membership level? Mike elaborated on his
> previous guidance not to do this:
> - It doesn't serve any purpose. Contributors can be recognized in other
> ways (on a web page, in an AUTHORS file in the git repo etc.).
> - Membership has a legal meaning for the LF and contributors may not meet
> comply (e.g. a member of an LF project needs to be a member of the LF, but
> a contributor does not).
> - Others felt that this would just add overhead and cause confusion.
> Agreed that we don't see a need for this.
> Do DPDK project members need to be LF members?
> - The answer is yes. LF membership rates are documented in the LF bylaws (
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws). I've added a link to the
> charter doc. Mike has clarified further in a separate email (
> http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-January/000135.html).
> Should Gold and Silver members pay the same rate for lab resources?
> - Vincent proposed that Gold and Silver members pay the same rate for lab
> resources. I disagreed with this as it means that Gold members are paying
> twice - they provide more funding for the project through a higher
> membership fee, but would then be expected to also pay the same rate as
> Silver members who've contributed less.
> - We agreed that we would leave details of costs for different membership
> levels to be determined by the Governing Board. I'll update the charter to
> reflect this.
> Are there, or do there need to be, any DPDK trademarks?
> - This discussion was prompted by Vincent's question on who can use the
> term DPDK in announcements etc. Nobody on the call was aware of any DPDK
> trademarks, but that's not a definitive answer. Agreed that Mike Dolan will
> consider trademarks in his discussions with legal representatives. If
> anybody wants to be represented in these discussions and hasn't already
> done so, they should provide the name of their legal counsel to Mike.
> Next Meeting:
> Tuesday January 17th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We need to
> agree on whether or not Governing Board meetings should be public, resolve
> any remaining comments on the charter, and then discuss next steps for
> identifying membership rates, project members etc.

[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Networking Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9623 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-12  9:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-11 22:16 O'Driscoll, Tim
2017-01-12  9:09 ` Francois Ozog [this message]
2017-01-12 12:07   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2017-01-12 12:14     ` Ed Warnicke
2017-01-12 15:53       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2017-01-12 12:47     ` Vincent JARDIN
2017-01-12 12:55 ` Vincent JARDIN
2017-01-13  5:12   ` Vincent Jardin
2017-01-17 14:19     ` 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:

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to='CAHFG_=Uxhoa78N9HVFY45F8uwSy9ZWR56_=Y2MSqkf3Z4=U8wA@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=francois.ozog@linaro.org \
    --cc=dneary@redhat.com \
    --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).