From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98B756A2 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:22:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id e69so122607472wmg.0 for ; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:22:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DMXog1vuhY90blzajqBnOfDSbPBMIUz8HLQ7rOLNJaQ=; b=aKXJZE/VpPqH7ENROD6ci3W2gdcnyZSo3MCWAw5ggNsQKU1PRl5C6r4g0ibGsHJKyJ pfWN8Qrt0MJnbyuM+5q/NRKslKKkT4Kl6+/Jmxcd6BDE5XFV4kMO8roUQup//OtI/ZxA VEtvBJfYrdWXB7H8B0fyWT6wbcBnckJVPulL8CYBbBH3z0OK7F/liTpECZfAUH6iXotN NzVT5hgAqQ969WkMREu8JyMBkpK5pN9QzqUx+xqq33HViAiMB+SSYJaFP96kED+jHdEX qTKS6bQyooejt4Rv5Sc9KEjMzss8xNYjPIFfsthhrpv2+8ZkuNHa7v7BkTtvP0Q/gJpM MeJw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DMXog1vuhY90blzajqBnOfDSbPBMIUz8HLQ7rOLNJaQ=; b=k8dtZe23N3hOz4cRdGFUgcImgDf3QAWPguwLMQz5v5Fm93ma7nCQDI3NuM+5FRghs5 Sc58n7Zd+OpCcWC4hlH5rJzLyGN6rlmulVJfMDDOGcQFAkm+0gnOXlSxahiDu/ibiMlN Sa7LpnMaSU/6hrrruuqWiczEQPLR1KpUnG3LK7A4Deq8pAMS2+xzDk8U/o4i+G7oilGD o9JglV67nKtSupmyT+6vaGtfaMAE4cXNfXGtb6mZ5LBJfmypeniunqSK+wk/JkevbLVF dzpcn+Kwj1mPkQfCdXkCMrGgEff3TP+oZl6LwCG22wRYcmvfwWCc2ehQtx9zfN2YXh44 eWEg== X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvccCj9WjRglixCyNBYhr46yPJ+542EIIj++CKrMNI5AErCHizktqjv9FaodA2hA2A6S X-Received: by 10.194.77.237 with SMTP id v13mr12996099wjw.220.1477682561229; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:22:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rv12sm15612137wjb.29.2016.10.28.12.22.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 28 Oct 2016 12:22:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: moving@dpdk.org, Matt Spencer Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 21:22:39 +0200 Message-ID: <2677739.KbWyRmNgFH@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA676091C7@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] description of technical governance 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: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:22:41 -0000 2016-10-28 16:52, Matt Spencer: > 1 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer > As this stands today, that would give us 56 TSC members, > with almost half of them from one company > > 2 - we adopt the model as is - one TSC member per committer - > to a maximum of 20% membership of the TSC > This would ensure that no one company can 'own' the TSC - > 56 committers, so max TSC membership from one company would be 11 > > 3 - Maximum one member of TSC per committing company, > plus one TSC assignee per paid member > This would keep the TSC to a manageable level, give companies > an incentive to join, but not require membership to be on the TSC > > 4 - Something else? > > My current thoughts are with 3 because we should end up with a > representative cross section of the stakeholders of the project, > whilst still incentivising membership of the foundation. Thanks for sharing your view. I'm an Open Source guy and I might lack some politician skills. So please excuse me if I take the freedom to talk really frankly :) First of all, this email thread was dedicated to the technical governance. And Matt is introducing money in this topic by talking about incentives. I think it is a very interesting point that we must discuss. >>From the beginning, everybody were saying that we must keep technical governance and legal structure separate. However one question has still no good answer: what is the incentive for contributing money in the structure? Is money going to biase the desired meritocratic system? My second comment is about having one company controlling the technical governance. I won't enter into the number details, and it's true that Intel provides at least 50% of the contributions nowadays. Intel is also the biggest contributor to Linux. No surprise. I understand that a voice from ARM is requiring to mitigate this fact. I would prefer ARM related companies working to achieve the same level of commitment as Intel. They are increasing their contribution pace but may never really compete with a giant like Intel. That's why I second Matt to say that we must give a chance to every vendors to influence the technical decisions. Introducing a membership threshold looks to be a good idea. Having said that, I must state that the DPDK reality is a lot more complex than a competition between vendors. We are proving that a consensus based model works very well without the need of a TSC or a board. We can create such organization, but please keep in mind that it should not be really helpful in the day-to-day job.