[dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter

[dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3610 bytes --]

I created a draft DPDK Project Charter based on the example charters from other projects that Mike Dolan provided. It's far from complete, but there should be enough there for people to review and comment.

I've sent invites via Google docs to those who expressed an interest in working on the move to the Linux Foundation and who have email addresses that Google accepts (I think it rejects some people because Intel has configured Google docs to only allow sharing with Google accounts). I've attached a PDF for anybody else who wants to review. Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at: https://accounts.google.com/signupwithoutgmail and then use the following link: https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1oCJMX-gA9LdubA40t-F31ntb7SeDBWCwDfTnkbl9tFM/edit?usp=sharing (you'll need to submit an access request the first time you try to open it).

A lot of it is fairly generic and copied from other charters, but there are some things to consider:

1. I've left the project Mission very broad because that seems to be the trend in other project charters. It's really just a high level statement of intent for the project.

2. I've assumed for now that we'll have two membership levels, although we'll need to decide that when we have a better idea of budget and likely members. For now, this is really just a placeholder. I did add some thoughts on what the benefits of the two tiers would be. It's worth reviewing and considering those. The way it's written at the moment, those who contribute to the budget have a say in how that budget is spent, and that say is proportional to the size of contribution (so higher tier members get a bigger say than lower tier members). It is important to emphasise that this doesn't affect the technical aspects of the project in any way - anybody can still contribute, become a maintainer, become a Tech Board member etc.

3. Besides DPDK we have a few sub-projects that are also hosted on dpdk.org. These are identified in section 2. There needs to be a mechanism for reviewing any new sub-projects that are proposed (e.g. if somebody wants to add another packet generator to DPDK). At the moment, I've specified that the Governing Board reviews new projects to make sure that they're consistent with the project mission, and that the project proposal includes a reasonable technical governance structure (i.e. maintainers/committers have been identified etc.). Alternatively, we could have the existing Tech Board review, but the scope of that board is just for DPDK (as defined at http://dpdk.org/dev#board) and it doesn't cover the other sub-projects like SPP, Pktgen, DTS etc. If we want to expand its scope then the composition would need to be changed to be more inclusive of other projects, which would reduce its focus on DPDK. Another option would be to have a higher level TSC like FD.io does, but that seems like too much overhead for DPDK. In all probability, new projects will be rare anyway (SPP is the only recent one).

4. The Technical Governance section is just an outline and needs to be populated. I think this should be done not just for DPDK but for the other projects as well, even though they're smaller.

5. The IP Policy specifies at the moment that everything is 3-clause BSD which isn't correct. It needs to be updated to reflect the parts of DPDK that use other licenses.

People can add comments directly to the document, or else comment via email on the moving@dpdk.org
list. If there are any areas where we don't have a consensus then we'll discuss and agree during our weekly meetings.


Tim


[-- Attachment #2: DPDKProjectCharter.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 97431 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter

[Vincent JARDIN]

Tim,

Thanks for your draft, but it is not a good proposal. It is not written 
in the spirit that we have discussed in Dublin:
   - you create the status of "Gold" members that we do not want from 
Linux Foundation,
   - you start with "DPDK’s first $1,000,000", it is far from the $O 
that we agreed based on OVS model.

Please, explain why you did change it?

Thank you,
   Vincent

Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:41 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
> 
> Tim,
> 
> Thanks for your draft, but it is not a good proposal. It is not written
> in the spirit that we have discussed in Dublin:
>    - you create the status of "Gold" members that we do not want from
> Linux Foundation,

As I said in the email, I put in two levels of membership as a placeholder. The first thing we need to decide is if we want to have a budget and membership, or if we want the OVS model with 0 budget and no membership. We can discuss that at today's meeting.

If we do want a membership model then we'll need to decide if everybody contributes at the same rate or if we support multiple levels. So, for now, the text on having two levels is just an example to show what a membership model might look like.

>    - you start with "DPDK's first $1,000,000", it is far from the $O
> that we agreed based on OVS model.

That's just standard text that I see in all the LF charters. It's even in the OVS charter (http://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf) even though they have 0 budget. I assumed it's standard text for the LF. I'm sure Mike Dolan can clarify.

> 
> Please, explain why you did change it?
> 
> Thank you,
>    Vincent

Re: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

Internal restrictions on Google docs meant that there was no way for me to give public access to the draft charter. So, Mike Dolan has taken a copy and set it up in a new location: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs/edit?usp=sharing. Please use this version from now on.

The good news is that there's now public access so anybody can view and comment.

The bad news is that existing comments have not been preserved. I think it was only Vincent, Matt and I that had made comments so far. I'll leave the old version in place so we can still see the history, but Vincent and Matt should feel free to comment again on the new version.

Apologies for the inconvenience.


Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll,
> Tim
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 10:55 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
> 
> I created a draft DPDK Project Charter based on the example charters
> from other projects that Mike Dolan provided. It's far from complete,
> but there should be enough there for people to review and comment.
> 
> I've sent invites via Google docs to those who expressed an interest in
> working on the move to the Linux Foundation and who have email addresses
> that Google accepts (I think it rejects some people because Intel has
> configured Google docs to only allow sharing with Google accounts). I've
> attached a PDF for anybody else who wants to review. Alternatively you
> can sign up for a Google account at:
> https://accounts.google.com/signupwithoutgmail and then use the
> following link: https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1oCJMX-
> gA9LdubA40t-F31ntb7SeDBWCwDfTnkbl9tFM/edit?usp=sharing (you'll need to
> submit an access request the first time you try to open it).
> 
> A lot of it is fairly generic and copied from other charters, but there
> are some things to consider:
> 
> 1. I've left the project Mission very broad because that seems to be the
> trend in other project charters. It's really just a high level statement
> of intent for the project.
> 
> 2. I've assumed for now that we'll have two membership levels, although
> we'll need to decide that when we have a better idea of budget and
> likely members. For now, this is really just a placeholder. I did add
> some thoughts on what the benefits of the two tiers would be. It's worth
> reviewing and considering those. The way it's written at the moment,
> those who contribute to the budget have a say in how that budget is
> spent, and that say is proportional to the size of contribution (so
> higher tier members get a bigger say than lower tier members). It is
> important to emphasise that this doesn't affect the technical aspects of
> the project in any way - anybody can still contribute, become a
> maintainer, become a Tech Board member etc.
> 
> 3. Besides DPDK we have a few sub-projects that are also hosted on
> dpdk.org. These are identified in section 2. There needs to be a
> mechanism for reviewing any new sub-projects that are proposed (e.g. if
> somebody wants to add another packet generator to DPDK). At the moment,
> I've specified that the Governing Board reviews new projects to make
> sure that they're consistent with the project mission, and that the
> project proposal includes a reasonable technical governance structure
> (i.e. maintainers/committers have been identified etc.). Alternatively,
> we could have the existing Tech Board review, but the scope of that
> board is just for DPDK (as defined at http://dpdk.org/dev#board) and it
> doesn't cover the other sub-projects like SPP, Pktgen, DTS etc. If we
> want to expand its scope then the composition would need to be changed
> to be more inclusive of other projects, which would reduce its focus on
> DPDK. Another option would be to have a higher level TSC like FD.io
> does, but that seems like too much overhead for DPDK. In all
> probability, new projects will be rare anyway (SPP is the only recent
> one).
> 
> 4. The Technical Governance section is just an outline and needs to be
> populated. I think this should be done not just for DPDK but for the
> other projects as well, even though they're smaller.
> 
> 5. The IP Policy specifies at the moment that everything is 3-clause BSD
> which isn't correct. It needs to be updated to reflect the parts of DPDK
> that use other licenses.
> 
> People can add comments directly to the document, or else comment via
> email on the moving@dpdk.org
> list. If there are any areas where we don't have a consensus then we'll
> discuss and agree during our weekly meetings.
> 
> 
> Tim

Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter

[Matt Spencer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2541 bytes --]

I think we need a discussion about the levels of membership - possibly at next weeks meeting?


My feeling is that we need more than one level

  - One to enable contribution of hardware to the lab, as the lab will add cost to the overall project budget

  - A second to enable contribution to the marketing aspects of the project and to allow association for marketing purposes


Calling these Gold and Silver is fine with me, but as I say, lets discuss this at next weeks meeting.


Matt

________________________________
From: moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Sent: 08 November 2016 03:57:36
To: Vincent JARDIN; moving@dpdk.org
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:41 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
>
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for your draft, but it is not a good proposal. It is not written
> in the spirit that we have discussed in Dublin:
>    - you create the status of "Gold" members that we do not want from
> Linux Foundation,

As I said in the email, I put in two levels of membership as a placeholder. The first thing we need to decide is if we want to have a budget and membership, or if we want the OVS model with 0 budget and no membership. We can discuss that at today's meeting.

If we do want a membership model then we'll need to decide if everybody contributes at the same rate or if we support multiple levels. So, for now, the text on having two levels is just an example to show what a membership model might look like.

>    - you start with "DPDK's first $1,000,000", it is far from the $O
> that we agreed based on OVS model.

That's just standard text that I see in all the LF charters. It's even in the OVS charter (http://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf) even though they have 0 budget. I assumed it's standard text for the LF. I'm sure Mike Dolan can clarify.

>
> Please, explain why you did change it?
>
> Thank you,
>    Vincent
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3912 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3336 bytes --]

Agreed. I think we should use next week's meeting to walk through the document, discuss the comments, and agree on the changes.

As I said before, the two-level structure that's in there at the moment is a placeholder, but it does allow for one level of contribution to the shared lab and a lower level contribution for marketing purposes.


Tim

From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 6:18 PM
To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Vincent JARDIN <vincent.jardin@6wind.com>; moving@dpdk.org
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter


I think we need a discussion about the levels of membership - possibly at next weeks meeting?



My feeling is that we need more than one level

  - One to enable contribution of hardware to the lab, as the lab will add cost to the overall project budget

  - A second to enable contribution to the marketing aspects of the project and to allow association for marketing purposes



Calling these Gold and Silver is fine with me, but as I say, lets discuss this at next weeks meeting.



Matt

________________________________
From: moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org<mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org>> on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com<mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com>>
Sent: 08 November 2016 03:57:36
To: Vincent JARDIN; moving@dpdk.org<mailto:moving@dpdk.org>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] [dpdk-dev] Draft Project Charter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Vincent JARDIN
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 11:41 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org<mailto:moving@dpdk.org>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org<mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
>
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for your draft, but it is not a good proposal. It is not written
> in the spirit that we have discussed in Dublin:
>    - you create the status of "Gold" members that we do not want from
> Linux Foundation,

As I said in the email, I put in two levels of membership as a placeholder. The first thing we need to decide is if we want to have a budget and membership, or if we want the OVS model with 0 budget and no membership. We can discuss that at today's meeting.

If we do want a membership model then we'll need to decide if everybody contributes at the same rate or if we support multiple levels. So, for now, the text on having two levels is just an example to show what a membership model might look like.

>    - you start with "DPDK's first $1,000,000", it is far from the $O
> that we agreed based on OVS model.

That's just standard text that I see in all the LF charters. It's even in the OVS charter (http://openvswitch.org/charter/charter.pdf) even though they have 0 budget. I assumed it's standard text for the LF. I'm sure Mike Dolan can clarify.

>
> Please, explain why you did change it?
>
> Thank you,
>    Vincent
IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8821 bytes --]

Re: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter

[Matt Spencer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5422 bytes --]

Thanks for sorting this out Tim.


I have added my comments back to this document, plus added a few more.


/Matt

________________________________
From: moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Sent: 08 November 2016 10:15:04
To: moving@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter

Internal restrictions on Google docs meant that there was no way for me to give public access to the draft charter. So, Mike Dolan has taken a copy and set it up in a new location: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs/edit?usp=sharing. Please use this version from now on.

The good news is that there's now public access so anybody can view and comment.

The bad news is that existing comments have not been preserved. I think it was only Vincent, Matt and I that had made comments so far. I'll leave the old version in place so we can still see the history, but Vincent and Matt should feel free to comment again on the new version.

Apologies for the inconvenience.


Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: moving [mailto:moving-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll,
> Tim
> Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2016 10:55 AM
> To: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: [dpdk-moving] Draft Project Charter
>
> I created a draft DPDK Project Charter based on the example charters
> from other projects that Mike Dolan provided. It's far from complete,
> but there should be enough there for people to review and comment.
>
> I've sent invites via Google docs to those who expressed an interest in
> working on the move to the Linux Foundation and who have email addresses
> that Google accepts (I think it rejects some people because Intel has
> configured Google docs to only allow sharing with Google accounts). I've
> attached a PDF for anybody else who wants to review. Alternatively you
> can sign up for a Google account at:
> https://accounts.google.com/signupwithoutgmail and then use the
> following link: https://docs.google.com/a/intel.com/document/d/1oCJMX-
> gA9LdubA40t-F31ntb7SeDBWCwDfTnkbl9tFM/edit?usp=sharing (you'll need to
> submit an access request the first time you try to open it).
>
> A lot of it is fairly generic and copied from other charters, but there
> are some things to consider:
>
> 1. I've left the project Mission very broad because that seems to be the
> trend in other project charters. It's really just a high level statement
> of intent for the project.
>
> 2. I've assumed for now that we'll have two membership levels, although
> we'll need to decide that when we have a better idea of budget and
> likely members. For now, this is really just a placeholder. I did add
> some thoughts on what the benefits of the two tiers would be. It's worth
> reviewing and considering those. The way it's written at the moment,
> those who contribute to the budget have a say in how that budget is
> spent, and that say is proportional to the size of contribution (so
> higher tier members get a bigger say than lower tier members). It is
> important to emphasise that this doesn't affect the technical aspects of
> the project in any way - anybody can still contribute, become a
> maintainer, become a Tech Board member etc.
>
> 3. Besides DPDK we have a few sub-projects that are also hosted on
> dpdk.org. These are identified in section 2. There needs to be a
> mechanism for reviewing any new sub-projects that are proposed (e.g. if
> somebody wants to add another packet generator to DPDK). At the moment,
> I've specified that the Governing Board reviews new projects to make
> sure that they're consistent with the project mission, and that the
> project proposal includes a reasonable technical governance structure
> (i.e. maintainers/committers have been identified etc.). Alternatively,
> we could have the existing Tech Board review, but the scope of that
> board is just for DPDK (as defined at http://dpdk.org/dev#board) and it
> doesn't cover the other sub-projects like SPP, Pktgen, DTS etc. If we
> want to expand its scope then the composition would need to be changed
> to be more inclusive of other projects, which would reduce its focus on
> DPDK. Another option would be to have a higher level TSC like FD.io
> does, but that seems like too much overhead for DPDK. In all
> probability, new projects will be rare anyway (SPP is the only recent
> one).
>
> 4. The Technical Governance section is just an outline and needs to be
> populated. I think this should be done not just for DPDK but for the
> other projects as well, even though they're smaller.
>
> 5. The IP Policy specifies at the moment that everything is 3-clause BSD
> which isn't correct. It needs to be updated to reflect the parts of DPDK
> that use other licenses.
>
> People can add comments directly to the document, or else comment via
> email on the moving@dpdk.org
> list. If there are any areas where we don't have a consensus then we'll
> discuss and agree during our weekly meetings.
>
>
> Tim

IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7308 bytes --]