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

["O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>]

> From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 2:16 PM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>
> Cc: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter
>
> I think I suggested a Contributor level member so that they could be allocated official positions in the charter.
>
> It was also to track who had signed up to the CLA (or similar).
>
> At the time we were discussing Silver member access to the Governing Board (in a 5-1 ratio, maximum 2 if I remember).  The Contributor level member was there to allow Contributor access to the board at a suggested 20-1 ratio with some maximum, voted for by their peers.
>
> I think this level of membership is needed to track CLA?

The need for a CLA has been raised a couple of times and we do need to conclude on that. The current DPDK process (http://dpdk.org/dev#send) requires that each patch has a "Signed-off-by" line certifying that it's compliant with the Developer Certificate of Origin (http://developercertificate.org/). Can you explain what you think is not covered adequately by this?

I'm definitely not a lawyer, but from a quick glance at the Linaro CLA (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8xTReYFXqNtR0wwRUhqUEpwTUE/preview) it seems to cover essentially the same things with the biggest difference I saw being a grant of patent license. If we feel that a patent license is important then there are other ways to achieve that such as moving to the Apache 2.0 license (https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) for new contributions. Coverage with either approach (CLA or Apache 2.0) would only be partial anyway, as neither would apply to the existing DPDK code.

My concern over a CLA would be that the need to sign and submit paperwork before they can contribute to DPDK would deter smaller contributors.

>
> /Matt
>
> ________________________________________
> From: moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
> Sent: 24 November 2016 13:26
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Dave Neary
> Cc: moving@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter 
> 
> 2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> > > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the software
> > > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come into being
> > > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK software project
> > > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while participation in
> > > the DPDK Project under the LF is limited to paying companies, for the
> > > most part.
> > 
> > The aim was that this was clear from point 4.a in the Membership section. At last week's meeting somebody (Matt I think) suggested adding a membership category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most people felt this was over-kill.
> > 
> > Do you think this is clear from point 4.a, or do you still think something further is required?
>
> I think the membership section must be part of the governing board section.
> So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing board.
> 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.