From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B762C0F; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 19:20:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2016 10:20:20 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,377,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="22264079" Received: from fmsmsx108.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.206]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2016 10:20:20 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx119.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.207) by FMSMSX108.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:20:19 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx113.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.13.160]) by FMSMSX119.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.14.3]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 10:20:19 -0700 From: "Wiles, Keith" To: Dave Neary CC: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , "dev@dpdk.org" , "users@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation Thread-Index: AdIi0Am9XkA5c/YfTUiuKkI+LzQJygJDitQAAAb27IA= Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:20:19 +0000 Message-ID: References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <580A1F94.9080304@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <580A1F94.9080304@redhat.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.252.14.92] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0938668CC9F37F4F93F494C21FF24F34@intel.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 17:20:23 -0000 Thanks Dave for your work and notes: Comment inline > On Oct 21, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Dave Neary wrote: >=20 > Hi all, >=20 > We had a great session yesterday on this topic, I took some notes - does > anyone who was there have any corrections, or anyone who was not have > any comments? >=20 > Thanks, > Dave. >=20 > Tim led the discussion, and started by outlining that he saw there were > 3 different questions which we should treat independently: >=20 > 1. Is there a benefit to moving DPDK to a foundation? > 2. If the answer is yes: there are two options currently proposed - a > low overhead, independent project under the Linux Foundation (LF Lite), > or joining fd.io as a sub-project. Which one of these is preferable, or > is there another option to consider? > 3. Are there any related changes we should consider in technical > infrastructure and project governance? >=20 > I outlined some advantages I see to the Linux Foundation: > * Pool resources for events > * Provides some legal foresight > * LF standing behind a project gives some companies assurances that > there is good, open technical governance and a level playing field for > participants >=20 > Stephen Hemminger asked if there was a sponsorship requirement. Tim > responded that it is possible to do what Open vSwitch has done, and have > no membership funding requirement. What that means is that any funds the > project community wants to spend needs to be budgeted ad hoc. >=20 > A number of others (Shreyansh Jain, Matt Spencer) said they would like > to see a formal model for non-technical engagement, legal protection for > patent and copyright, and more clarity on the technical governance. >=20 > Vincent Jardin said that whatever happens, it is vital that DPDK remain > an open, community-run project. >=20 > A number of people expressed interest in the change, but could not > commit to funding. >=20 > Jerome Tollet said that he felt it was important to have better test and > CI infrastructure, and that these cost money. He proposed that since > fd.io already has infrastructure and a lab, that this would be an > affordable option for doing this. >=20 > Vincent and Thomas Monjalon suggested that distributed testing was a > better option - creating an opportunity for different people to send > test results to a central gathering point. Thomas mentioned that > Patchwork has a feature which allows aggregation of test results for > specific patches now. >=20 > Tim asked if there was agreement on a move, and there was no opposition. > Vincent suggested opening a call for proposals to have a wider range of > choices than LF Lite or fd.io. Jim St. Leger said we have already had a > group who evaluated options and made a proposal, and we should not re-do > the process. >=20 > Jerome recommended that we focus on requirements and criteria for > determining the choice: timing, governance requirements, budget, and > hardware/infrastructure requirements. Keith Wiles suggested that there > was a need for some budgetary requirement to show commitment of > participating companies. What I stated was more around, if we moved to LF we do need a budget and co= mpanies that want to contribute with money and/or people it would be great.= I wanted to make sure everyone knows anyone can contribute for free to the= project and the companies putting money in project are not controlling the= technical part development of DPDK. At one point a year ago it was thought= you had to pay to play/contribute to DPDK. I also believe we do need a budget as the services LF provides are not free= and we need to be able to support the project. If we can do something like= OVS did with zero budget and still make it work then OK. The only problem = I have is that model will not work, but I would like to be surprised. >=20 > When asked about transferring the ownership of the domain name to Linux > Foundation, Vincent reiterated that his main concern was keeping the > project open, and that he did not anticipate that transferring the > domain ownership would be an issue. >=20 > Moving on to question 2: >=20 > I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the > project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset > changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io, OVS, and > OPNFV to do testing of DPDK. >=20 > Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a preference > for a stand-alone lightweight project - one concern voiced was that > there is a potential perception issue with fd.io too. >=20 > Maciek K and Jerome encouraged everyone not to underestimate the > difficulty in setting up good CI and testing processes. >=20 > To close out the meeting, Tim summarised the consensus decisions: >=20 > * We agreed to move to a foundation > * A group will work on re-doing a budget proposal with the Linux > Foundation - target of 4 weeks to come up with a budget proposal for the > community > * There is a preference for an independent project rather than being a > sub-project >=20 > Budget group: > * Matt Spencer, ARM > * Jerome Tollet, Cisco > * Ed Warnicke, Cisco > * Shreyansh Jain, NXP > * Dave Neary, Red Hat > * Jan Blunk, Brocade > * Vincent Jardin, 6WIND > * Thomas Monjalon, 6WIND > * Tim O'Driscoll, Intel > * Francois Ozog, Linaro > * John Bromhead (sp?), Cavium >=20 >=20 > On 10/10/2016 09:33 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: >> This email is being sent on behalf of: Cavium, Cisco, Intel, NXP & Red H= at. >>=20 >>=20 >> Since its creation as an open source project in 2013, DPDK has grown sig= nificantly. The number of DPDK users, contributors, commercial products tha= t use DPDK and open source projects that depend on it have all increased co= nsistently over that time. DPDK is now a key ingredient in networking and N= FV, and we need to ensure that the project structure and governance are app= ropriate 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 Found= ation. We believe it's now time to conclude that discussion and make the mo= ve. The benefits of doing this would include: >> - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and con= trolled 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 infras= tructure for integration and testing (the FD.io CSIT lab is an example of t= his - see https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed); Support for legal = issues including trademarks and branding, and the ability to sign agreement= s on behalf of the project; Ability to pool resources for events and brand = promotion; Safe haven for community IP resources. >>=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 DPD= K Summit Userspace 2016 event in Dublin. We propose using that session to a= gree that the DPDK project will move to the Linux Foundation, and then to m= ove on to discussing the specifics. Things that we'll need to consider incl= ude: >> - Whether DPDK moves to the Linux Foundation as an independent project o= r as part of a larger project like FD.io. >> - Creation of a project charter similar to those created for FD.io (http= s://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) and Open vSwitch (see htt= p://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160619/5a2df53e/attachm= ent-0001.pdf). >> - Agreement on budget, membership levels etc. A draft budget was created= by the LF during previous discussions (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet= s/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 network= ing projects in LF, like ODL, FD.io, and OVS, makes it a natural destinatio= n 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 th= e services offered by the Linux Foundation. >>=20 >> The purpose of this email is to outline what we want to achieve during t= hat 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 discuss= ion 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 t= his 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 c= hanges. 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://dpd= k.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 investi= gate 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 prop= osal 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 discu= ssed on the mailing list (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/0265= 98.html) and agreed, leading to the creation of the DPDK Technical Board (h= ttp://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 ove= rview of the LF and the services they can provide. We agreed to form a smal= l 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 a= t: 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_ppmJV5GnX= cLg/edit#gid=3D302618256). We agreed to discuss this further on the dev mai= ling 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.or= g/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033192.html). There was public support from= Intel (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033297.html) and Broc= ade (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-February/033359.html). 6WIND requ= ested 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 Foundati= on (https://fd.io/news/announcement/2016/02/linux-foundation-forms-open-sou= rce-effort-advance-io-services). >>=20 >> June 2016: >> - The Open vSwitch project proposed moving to the Linux Foundation (http= ://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-June/021761.html). >>=20 >> August 2016: >> - The Open vSwitch project moved to the Linux Foundation (https://www.li= nuxfoundation.org/announcements/open-vswitch-joins-linux-foundation-open-ne= tworking-ecosystem). >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy > Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 Regards, Keith