From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga05.intel.com (mga05.intel.com [192.55.52.43]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30D65F614 for ; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 23:23:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2017 14:23:54 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,347,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="29228966" Received: from irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.25]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Jan 2017 14:23:51 -0800 Received: from irsmsx156.ger.corp.intel.com (10.108.20.68) by irsmsx110.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:23:50 +0000 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.173]) by IRSMSX156.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.104]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:23:50 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Vincent JARDIN , Dave Neary , Kevin Traynor , "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 20th Thread-Index: AQHSbAs98CcOULIRJUSEEPqHfYQAYqEzP8AAgACZOQA= Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:23:49 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722A66B5@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA72299670@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <316115b3-35ee-d99b-6965-21b2b088aa76@redhat.com> <5c225c4b-314a-e83e-cbb9-2f3df9c23f0e@6wind.com> In-Reply-To: <5c225c4b-314a-e83e-cbb9-2f3df9c23f0e@6wind.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYWEyMTgxYTYtZGFkNS00Y2UwLTllZTAtZTFmMmJjOTljMGEyIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiI1Rm9DTWRtTTZlSDEwUTk3K3VHRUM0UVplRGZFT21LUko5YkVxdndjd0IwPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 20th 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: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:23:55 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: Vincent JARDIN [mailto:vincent.jardin@6wind.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 1:09 PM > To: Dave Neary ; O'Driscoll, Tim > ; Kevin Traynor ; > moving@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux > Foundation" call, December 20th >=20 > Le 11/01/2017 =E0 14:04, Dave Neary a =E9crit : > > It seems that if the review of the technical governance is now > complete, > > and the DPDK developer community (and in particular the current > > technical board) is OK with any changes proposed, the biggest > remaining > > item will be the budget proposal and setting of membership fees. Yes, we're getting close. I hoped that we would be able to start the discus= sion on membership rates and identifying members at this week's meeting, bu= t that didn't happen. We should definitely do that at next week's meeting. >=20 > Hi Dave, >=20 > I agree that we are close, but there are still some few topics that were > raised based on some reviews of the charter during the seasonal: > - meetings of the Governing board should be opened, I heard from Mike > that there are some issues because some people do not like 'open board'. > Please, they need to be explained. I've summarized the reasons that were given by Mike and Ed in the minutes. = We agreed to consider this again and finalize it at next week's call. >=20 > - there will be a fee for the lab, it shall be the *same fee* for > everyone so everyone share the same constraints and benefits for the > same fee. As I said on the call on Tuesday, I don't agree that all members should pay= the same rate for the lab. I agree that the total cost should be the same = for Gold and Silver members, but account needs to be taken of how much they= 've already contributed to the project through membership fees. If we ask G= old members to contribute more funding to the project, and then expect them= to pay the same rate as Silver members for lab services, then they're effe= ctively paying twice. Anyway, we agreed that we would specify in the charter that rates and limit= s on lab equipment will be determined by the Governing Board. >=20 > I guess, they can be solved quickly. >=20 > Best regards, > Vincent