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 610C52C29; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:52:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2016 04:52:43 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,357,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="180582106" Received: from irsmsx152.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.66]) by fmsmga004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2016 04:52:42 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.164]) by IRSMSX152.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.13]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:52:41 +0100 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Hobywan Kenoby , "dev@dpdk.org" , "users@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Project Governance and Linux Foundation Thread-Index: AdIi0Am9XkA5c/YfTUiuKkI+LzQJygFj5VmUAAIf/0A= Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:52:40 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F6F33@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYmMzZTUxNGEtZGIyZS00OWUyLWEzNTMtMGM2YTY3YmRkYjdmIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IjZ2Q0ErTkhJaVY2VkpURm13T253anIra1A5d1djOTJsbVZPaWl0aEtkTHc9In0= x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: usage discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 11:52:46 -0000 Hi HK, > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Hobywan Kenoby > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:24 AM > To: O'Driscoll, Tim ; dev@dpdk.org; > users@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation >=20 > Hi Tim, >=20 >=20 > The Linux kernel community has a governance close to DPDK. It did allow > companies to grow largebusinesses and indivuals to take an > active and even influencial roles based on their technical expertise and > merits. >=20 > I don't really understand what can be gained by moving to Linux > Foundation, but I am almost sure that no individual expert will be able > to take any leaderhip role as those roles will be fulfilled by Platinum, > Gold or Silver members: right ? No. If DPDK were to move to LF as an independent project, then as discussed= at the Userspace event in Dublin last year, and as documented in the origi= nal post below, the intention would be not to make any significant changes = to the technical governance. If DPDK were to move to FD.io the situation would be the same. The FD.io Te= chnical Community Charter (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-cha= rter) specifies how Project Technical Leaders and Committers are nominated = and approved, but there's no requirement for people in those roles to come = from Platinum, Gold or Silver FD.io members. Those decisions are based pure= ly on technical merit. > VPP is a virtual switch that has its own event model that may compete > with the new model proposed by Intel, Cavium and NXP. What would be the > acceptability of such a proposal if DPDK would have been folded into > FD.IO? Acceptance of the libeventdev proposal would be no different if DPDK were p= art of FD.io. It would be reviewed and accepted based on its technical meri= t. FD.io is an umbrella project comprising a number of individual sub-projects= . Those sub-projects are free to make their own technical decisions. This i= s documented in the Guiding Principles section of the FD.io Technical Commu= nity Charter (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter): 4.Technical decisions (including release decisions) for a project should be= made by consensus of that project's Committers. If consensus cannot be re= ached, decisions are made by a majority vote of a project's Committers. Co= mmitters on a project may, by majority vote, delegate (or revoke delegation= of) any portion of the project's decisions to an alternate open, documente= d, traceable decision making process. > Intellectual property is probably properly handled in this community (I > don't really know a lot about this): are there things to be done on DPDK > to match was proved to be sufficient in Linux kernel? I think Intellectual Property is already properly handled within DPDK. Bein= g part of the Linux Foundation would provide a legal framework for dealing = with any trademark or other legal issues that may occur in future. > The current DPDK version can run on virtually all processors (Intel, IBM > and ARM) and leverage all NICs: is there **really** anyone questionning > openness of the community? I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with others who put= their names to the post below, they do too. I think it's a perception that= we need to address. >=20 > - HK >=20 >=20 >=20 > ________________________________ > From: dev on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:33 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org; users@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation >=20 > This email is being sent on behalf of: Cavium, Cisco, Intel, NXP & Red > Hat. >=20 >=20 > Since its creation as an open source project in 2013, DPDK has grown > significantly. The number of DPDK users, contributors, commercial > products that use DPDK and open source projects that depend on it have > all increased consistently over that time. DPDK is now a key ingredient > in networking and NFV, and we need to ensure that the project structure > and governance are appropriate for such a critical project, and that > they facilitate the project's continued growth. >=20 > For over a year now we've been discussing moving DPDK to the Linux > Foundation. We believe it's now time to conclude that discussion and > make the move. The benefits of doing this would include: > - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and > controlled by any single company. > - Remove any remaining perception that DPDK is not truly open. > - Allow the project to avail of the infrastructure and services provided > by the Linux Foundation. These include things like: Ability to host > infrastructure for integration and testing (the FD.io CSIT lab is an > example of this - see https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed); > Support for legal issues including trademarks and branding, and the > ability to sign agreements on behalf of the project; Ability to pool > resources for events and brand promotion; Safe haven for community IP > resources. > CSIT/CSIT LF testbed - > fd.io > wiki.fd.io > FD.IO CSIT testbed - Server HW Configuration. CSIT testbed contains > following three HW configuration types of UCS x86 servers, across total > of ten servers provided: >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > We don't propose to debate the details here. Instead, an open discussion > session on DPDK Project Growth has been included in the agenda for the > DPDK Summit Userspace 2016 event in Dublin. We propose using that > session to agree that the DPDK project will move to the Linux > Foundation, and then to move on to discussing the specifics. Things that > we'll need to consider include: > - Whether DPDK moves to the Linux Foundation as an independent project > or as part of a larger project like FD.io. > - Creation of a project charter similar to those created for FD.io > (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) and Open vSwitch > (see > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160619/5a2df53e/a > ttachment-0001.pdf). > [https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/theme/backgrounds/bg.jpg] fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter> >=20 > Technical Community Charter | FD.io community-charter> > fd.io > 3.3.4 Project Reviews. For each review, there will be a publicly visible > wiki/web template filled out containing relevant review information. The > review document must ... >=20 >=20 >=20 > - Agreement on budget, membership levels etc. A draft budget was created > by the LF during previous discussions > (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1- > 3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=3D302618256), but it > is possible to adopt an even more lightweight model. >=20 > We could look at alternatives to the Linux Foundation, but a) we've been > talking to the LF for over a year now, and b) the preponderance of > networking projects in LF, like ODL, FD.io, and OVS, makes it a natural > destination for DPDK. >=20 > As highlighted in previous discussions on this topic, it's important to > stress that the intent is not to make significant changes to the > technical governance and decision making of the project. The project has > a strong set of maintainers and a Technical Board in place already. > What's required is to supplement that with an open governance structure > taking advantage of the services offered by the Linux Foundation. >=20 > The purpose of this email is to outline what we want to achieve during > that discussion session in Dublin, and to allow people to consider the > issue and prepare in advance. If people want to comment via email on the > mailing list, that's obviously fine, but we believe that an open and > frank discussion when people meet in person in Dublin is the best way to > progress this. >=20 >=20 > For reference, below is a brief history of the previous discussions on > this topic: >=20 > September 2015: > - A DPDK community call was held to discuss project growth and possible > improvements. This was the first public discussion on possible > governance changes. The agreed next step was to discuss this in more > detail at the 2015 DPDK Summit Userspace event Dublin. Minutes of the > call are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/024120.html. >=20 > October 2015: > - An open discussion session on project governance was held at the 2015 > DPDK Summit Userspace event. For technical governance, we agreed to > investigate creating a technical steering committee. For non-technical > governance (including things like event planning, legal and trademark > issues, hosting of the website etc.), we agreed to work with the Linux > Foundation on a proposal for a lightweight governance model for DPDK. > Minutes of the discussion are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015- > October/024825.html. >=20 > - The proposal for a technical steering committee was subsequently > discussed on the mailing list (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015- > October/026598.html) and agreed, leading to the creation of the DPDK > Technical Board (http://dpdk.org/dev#board). >=20 > December 2015: > - A community call was held to discuss migration to the Linux > Foundation. Mike Dolan (VP of Strategic Programs at The Linux > Foundation) gave an overview of the LF and the services they can > provide. We agreed to form a small sub-team (Dave Neary, Thomas > Monjalon, Stephen Hemminger, Tim O'Driscoll) to work with the LF on a > more detailed proposal. Minutes of the call are at: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-December/030532.html. >=20 > February 2016: > - A community call was held to discuss the LF budget proposal (see > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1- > 3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=3D302618256). We > agreed to discuss this further on the dev mailing list due to limited > attendance on the call. Minutes of the call are at: > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/032720.html. >=20 > - A request was made on the dev and announce mailing lists too determine > who supported the proposal to move to the Linux Foundation > (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033192.html). There was > public support from Intel (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016- > February/033297.html) and Brocade (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016- > February/033359.html). 6WIND requested postponing the move for a few > months (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033299.html). >=20 > - The Fast Data (FD.io) project was established under the Linux > Foundation (https://fd.io/news/announcement/2016/02/linux-foundation- > forms-open-source-effort-advance-io-services). > [https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/theme/backgrounds/bg.jpg] fd.io/news/announcement/2016/02/linux-foundation-forms-open-source- > effort-advance-io-services> >=20 > The Linux Foundation Forms Open Source Effort to Advance > ... source-effort-advance-io-services> > fd.io > Industry leaders unite for Fast Data (FD.io) Project; aims to establish > a high-performance IO services framework for dynamic computing > environments >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > June 2016: > - The Open vSwitch project proposed moving to the Linux Foundation > (http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-June/021761.html). > [ovs-discuss] Request for comments on Open vSwitch joining > ... > openvswitch.org > Since roughly October, some of the OVS committers have been talking over > the idea of bringing Open vSwitch into a foundation. Originally the > group discussing the idea ... >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > August 2016: > - The Open vSwitch project moved to the Linux Foundation > (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/announcements/open-vswitch-joins-linux- > foundation-open-networking-ecosystem). > Open vSwitch Joins Linux Foundation Open Networking > ... linux-foundation-open-networking-ecosystem> > www.linuxfoundation.org > SAN FRANCISCO - AUGUST 09, 2016 - The Linux Foundation, the nonprofit > advancing professional open source management for mass collaboration > today is announcing ... >=20 >=20