I would strongly recommend using the DCO rather than the CLA. Speaking as someone who's walked numerous CLAs through his legal group (sometimes more than once for a particular CLA), I find them to be a *very* substantial impediment to contribution and community building. Ed On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:27 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > > > From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Matt.Spencer@arm.com] > > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 2:16 PM > > To: Thomas Monjalon ; O'Driscoll, Tim < > tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Dave Neary > > 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 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. >