From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f176.google.com (mail-yw0-f176.google.com [209.85.161.176]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BB6A592C for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:09:18 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-yw0-f176.google.com with SMTP id a10so8148470ywa.3 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:09:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gjX5t7e9leZZY4oIlVvK8f2jFodUB6jDlCkGvoIkaO4=; b=G4CSvBipFsNH6BX8ZRNppaukENLMYK3qR5bazJ8I6S0ZlkXgZRK/zGqW1FoNVUWNov O1q3FEh+oK5X0ABUOpnAhwr8rlW5i8dm6XFTV2wsf3wCJoyQm5KgVx72GWxw0Ixfx0vq r2NTYJt4IVJKFyHxAd8lWjumSnstzjtSAV+C0= 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=gjX5t7e9leZZY4oIlVvK8f2jFodUB6jDlCkGvoIkaO4=; b=KAE9CNj5y75yXQsELUMe8ifhe8MfJX4+tNICIkB46Q7CPOsl0gHrS5agWmNNFOwtBu 5LXPnLYpGpS8cvED0qHgZtCW8NwiCywYAhewFaXSXJUO+fAjZ3XjeyZpepuk7vnwHaOp R9TSDFE0ky4r7OT/0QmdvXsuIpJlRvGJoowyVVIPVhjmmk8WoLUdmyUrBCcwY+Z2QaS/ uyRIutK8hd3uaTt15hsQbJk4G1LIf3PsTJfrh6AjCAHsjrA8v2iDR2pqlKDeKlOpl35l +Fyx7/uh6nPK7XI4Xwkbduwx5PoHKxhiKHGekThaycgbSmAcXdlJglsUdFEQabI0T5TM QONg== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIy+Nbxok78SY7O5T3j/0yZ1LcMwmX6xoNdhkWJ7t2BD9vP8+4KodBLdWuvmOC4UQXrwm/69FiM6Z5GBgQv X-Received: by 10.129.173.10 with SMTP id l10mr11366718ywh.175.1484212157817; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:09:17 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.37.164.103 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 01:09:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722A66A1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722A66A1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Francois Ozog Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 10:09:17 +0100 Message-ID: To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" , Dave Neary Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f403045f6e2270576f0545e2125b Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 10th 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: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 09:09:19 -0000 --f403045f6e2270576f0545e2125b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Dola= n > (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 boar= d > 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 i= n > 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, bu= t > 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 t= o > 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 wi= ll > 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, resolv= e > any remaining comments on the charter, and then discuss next steps for > identifying membership rates, project members etc. > --=20 [image: Linaro] Fran=C3=A7ois-Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric Ozog | *Director Linaro Networking Group* T: +33.67221.6485 francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog --f403045f6e2270576f0545e2125b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 Dub= lin and thought that Dave Neary may have said (unsure) that it was assumed = that the dpdk.org domain ownership should b= e transferred to LF.=C2=A0

Was there a discussion/= conclusion on this ?

Cordially,

FF

On 11 January 2017 at 23:16, O'Driscoll, Tim <= tim.odriscoll@= intel.com> wrote:
Here are= my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct any errors o= r to add additional details.

Attendees: Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Elsie Wahlig (Qualcomm), Erez Scop (Mellano= x), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Broc= ade), 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 (6= WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND).

Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things:
Project Charter: http= s://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dpp= IhrY48FoGs
Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html Minutes of October 31st call: http://dpd= k.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000031.html
Minutes of November 8th call: http://dpd= k.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000058.html
Minutes of November 15th call: http://dp= dk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000061.html
Minutes of November 22nd call: http://dp= dk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000085.html
Minutes of November 29th call: http://dp= dk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000099.html
Minutes of December 6th call: http://dpd= k.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000121.html
Minutes of December 13th call: http://dp= dk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-December/000124.html
Minutes of December 20th call: http://dp= dk.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 signifi= cant discussion points:

Do we need a clause to prevent gold members being outnumbered by silver mem= bers 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 d= ecide 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 kep= t confidential. Attorneys will also not be willing to give opinions in publ= ic 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 w= ho may not have been contacted yet, or who may not want their interest in D= PDK made public until their membership is finalized.
- Confidential budget info. Budgets may contain confidential info such as s= alaries which should not be discussed/disclosed in public.
We agreed to consider this again and agree at the next meeting. If there= 9;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 previ= ous 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 c= omply (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 (<= a href=3D"https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws" rel=3D"noreferrer" = target=3D"_blank">https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/bylaws). I= 've added a link to the charter doc. Mike has clarified further in a se= parate 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 r= esources. I disagreed with this as it means that Gold members are paying tw= ice - 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 member= s who've contributed less.
- We agreed that we would leave details of costs for different membership l= evels 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 t= rademarks, but that's not a definitive answer. Agreed that Mike Dolan w= ill consider trademarks in his discussions with legal representatives. If a= nybody 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 agr= ee on whether or not Governing Board meetings should be public, resolve any= remaining comments on the charter, and then discuss next steps for identif= ying membership rates, project members etc.



--
3D"Linaro"<= td style=3D"font-family:Arial,Helvetica,'Sans Serif';white-space:no= wrap;font-size:9pt;padding-top:2px;color:rgb(87,87,87)" valign=3D"top">T:= =C2=A0+33.67221.6485
francois.ozog@linaro.org=C2=A0|=C2=A0Skype:=C2=A0ffozog
Fran=C3= =A7ois-Fr=C3=A9d=C3=A9ric Ozog=C2=A0|=C2=A0Director Linaro Networking Group

--f403045f6e2270576f0545e2125b--