From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E070C5597 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:00:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2016 12:00:47 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,649,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1069444562" Received: from fmsmsx106.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.204]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 16 Nov 2016 12:00:43 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.199) by FMSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.204) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:00:43 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.68]) by fmsmsx101.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.1.55]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 12:00:43 -0800 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: Thomas Monjalon CC: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] Board Names Thread-Index: AdJAI7GZppqszIzhS3CxhXhg7tId+wAUHvaAAAS/MAA= Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:00:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676143A8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <1712528.kSnG0XNraU@xps13> In-Reply-To: <1712528.kSnG0XNraU@xps13> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.252.134.192] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <615BCB6848817D4C82875BE06DEF8DA9@intel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Board Names 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: Wed, 16 Nov 2016 20:00:49 -0000 > On Nov 16, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Thomas Monjalon = wrote: >=20 > 2016-11-16 16:50, O'Driscoll, Tim: >> For the board itself, there are several options including: >> 1.a Governing Board. This is frequently used in other LF projects. >> 1.b Board of Directors. This is also frequently used in other LF project= s. >> 1.c DPDK Board. This is a bit more neutral and doesn't imply that the bo= ard governs the technical aspects of the project. >> 1.d DPDK Marketing & CI Board. This is more specific, but is a bit misle= ading as the board only manages the budget for CI, not all aspects of CI. >=20 > I do not like 1.a, 1.b and 1.c because it is not descriptive enough. > We must avoid giving the impression that the technical part of the projec= t > is influenced by those paying a membership. >=20 > Why not simply one these new proposals? > 1.e Budget Board > 1.f Financial Board I am not a big fan of trying to label this board as it does a bit more then= just budgets or financial. It also does marketing, CI allocation and gener= al bottle washer :-) I wish I could come up with a better name that works. How about this then: - DPDK Governing Committee (DGC) or DPDK Governing Board (DGB) - Technical Steering Committee (TSC) my $0.02 worth, does that make my a gold member :-) >=20 >> For the technical board, the options include: >> 2.a Technical Board. This is the current name. >> 2.b Technical Steering Committee. This is the name typically used on oth= er LF projects. >=20 > OK for both Regards, Keith