Hi, 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 ? Cordially, FF On 11 January 2017 at 23:16, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > 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 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 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] François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Networking Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog