From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga06.intel.com (mga06.intel.com [134.134.136.31]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00736DE5 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 17:16:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2017 08:16:47 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,284,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="813226310" Received: from irsmsx106.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.31]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2017 08:16:45 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.173]) by IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.8.197]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:16:43 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "Wiles, Keith" CC: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 24th Thread-Index: AQHSdyJ42cENxyZ610O1ct+3V4B8M6FJWP8w Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:16:42 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722AFEEA@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722AFB94@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <19609074-037C-410D-8C49-9D47C366F5D2@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <19609074-037C-410D-8C49-9D47C366F5D2@intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiYjNkOTg5YTMtNDcyOS00M2JmLWJjODEtZGY4MTQ0NWFlYjM1IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJ1cDZBRDFTNnVyZHUrbzJrWVFmem8ySXE1VnBMMTBLM2VrT0RuSW1xNVlrPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, January 24th 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, 25 Jan 2017 16:16:52 -0000 > From: Wiles, Keith >=20 > Sent from my iPhone >=20 > > On Jan 25, 2017, at 4:57 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim > wrote: > > > > > > Membership costs: > > - Discussed potential membership costs. My proposal was ~$50-100k for > Gold, ~$5-$20k for Silver. Most agreed that this was a good starting > point for discussions. >=20 > I thought we were trending toward the higher $100k range as the lab was > going cost a fair bit am I wrong here? The membership rates we decide on will need to strike a balance between rai= sing budget and having a broad membership that's representative of the brea= dth of DPDK contributions/usage. If we choose a high figure it will limit t= he number of companies prepared to join. If we choose too low a number then= we won't maximize our budget. We need to strike a balance between the two. The next step we agreed was for Mike to identify who's interested in member= ship (he's already posted on the moving list asking for contacts) and begin= to have individual discussions with them. Feedback on membership rates fro= m these discussions will help us to make a final decision. I think we need to be careful on lab costs. Some high figures have been men= tioned based on FD.io, but from the beginning of these discussions we've ag= reed that we want a smaller scope and lower cost level for DPDK. Rough esti= mate for a full rack with a part time sys admin and a part time release eng= ineer is ~$200k/year. We also discussed yesterday whether lab costs should be fully accounted for= in the Gold membership fee, or if they should be handled separately. Mike = will also ask about interest in the lab as part of his discussions which wi= ll help us to reach a conclusion on this.