Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>]

Thanks to John McNamara, the contribution guide is now updated to give
more details about how sub-trees and maintainers work:
	http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/patches.html#maintainers-and-sub-trees
We could add a link here:
	http://dpdk.org/dev

We also need to define where the charter will be published.
I suggest a dedicated web page linked in the "About" page.

I think we need also to refresh the home page.


2016-10-26 10:21, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com]
> > 2016-10-25 11:27, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > > We also have a gap in terms of documenting technical governance.
> > > Even ignoring the move to LF, Matt in particular was looking for
> > > more clarity on this.
> > > Thomas: would you be willing to create and post a proposal on this?
> > 
> > The technical governance is consensus-based.
> > The board was built in case a consensus is not found.
> > 
> > There are several projects with their own git trees.
> > DPDK and the web site are two of them.
> > 
> > The DPDK project is organized around some git subtrees
> > and the mainline gathers every contributions accepted in the subtrees.
> > The component maintainers are quality responsibles for the code and
> > the git history. They coordinate how improvements and fixes are done.
> > The git tree committers are responsibles of the pace, giving time for
> > reviews and tests while releasing in time. They also do the last checks
> > or call for help when there is no progress on a patch.
> > 
> > Is it the kind of information you are looking for?
> > I think the technical governance must be described on the web site
> > in the "development" page.
> > It is already partly described but it may requires more details and
> > updates.
> 
> Yes, it's the additional detail that I was asking about. If you look at what we have at the moment (http://dpdk.org/dev), it's quite brief. Other projects typically have more detail, for example:
> - FD.io Technical Community Charter: https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter
> - OvS technical governance including committer responsibilities and process for adding and removing committers: http://openvswitch.github.io/contributors/
> - ODL TSC Charter: https://www.opendaylight.org/tsc-charter
> 
> We don't necessarily need as much detail as they have, but I think we do need a bit more than we have at the moment. From a brief discussion with Mike Dolan during our previous engagement with the LF earlier in the year, the LF would simply be looking for DPDK technical governance to be properly documented, and for it to be meritocratic (e.g. committers chosen based on history of contributions rather than the company they work for).
> 
> Matt also had some thoughts during our discussion in Dublin on things he'd like to see added to the technical governance. Perhaps he can comment further on what he'd like to see.
> 
> In terms of where this is documented, I don't think that matters, and adding some additional detail to the existing Development page seems like a good solution to me.