Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter

[Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>]

Matt, Fifo,

> On 29 November 2016 at 14:50, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com
> <mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>> wrote:
>
>     2016-11-29 14:20, Francois Ozog:
>     > Hi Matt,
>     >
>     > I coy/paste Mike Dolan's comment on CLA:
>     >
>     > "Most of our projects use the Apache CCLA if a CLA is required. We have a
>     > fully automated e-signature management system for CLA signings. You can see
>     > the CCLA for Kubernetes for example here:
>     > https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement
>     >
>     <https://www.google.com/url?q=https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement&sa=D&ust=1480344167438000&usg=AFQjCNEbhgdm3M7dTLB1Xxwp8af7LJcC-A
>     > "
>     >
>     > I had Linaro member companie lawyers have a look at it and they said it is
>     > fine.
>     >
>     > So it should be nice to have such CCLA in place in DPDK.
>
>     Why?
>
>
> In an early mail I said:

It is useless argument. We are not making any progress on it.
Assuming the technical folks do not want to change the current 
git+review+sign-off process by adding extra paper work, does it mean 
that Linaro and ARM cannot contribute do DPDK?

I feel we are beating a non issue here.

Thank you,
   Vincent