From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f172.google.com (mail-qt0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361A1F72 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 19:13:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qt0-f172.google.com with SMTP id w33so46543499qtc.3 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:13:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=J08DyHlj9zWigh2Ewa/n9WXZWh2DbNK2/9VZdB4WR60=; b=j3C0Gf5384IKqw+cfyfWWqkYL10XMxvxpc8b2zJFgIs3l+70N+fBuxw+ME4r/GcTS1 d6tyFg68xvY+l1dM9gJU/PtjL0RZBkkRhXAfOPDMfCSwKmlyjHQs0o7AtsLfHSpegwUl xqBvxtiIzCExPcs7cKVdjPi/FmtbuBnE/RbGhZL3QAa+LF407tzPxg4xtn/JU3e8Z1es iMS0m/PZepHEeIhDRfk3sIrADW6WhGg5OGExmIfgOwvUCoO0IlRVx0Z/bIMhwDYYTXIz yxlirmVNgB0CSLiQW+3Ao27qTHHxNtbVOXsQwSfJ4273ogKTwuMZ8mX+5zzEOwpap/Ek x3Bw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=J08DyHlj9zWigh2Ewa/n9WXZWh2DbNK2/9VZdB4WR60=; b=LQ5mZl2x03XtdBMXn+zLGWpzMgXSE9IRHVYSWItV3wWwM/fzumIp3zh6dsBvDKmZmA witNliqaDB6IpquLEio+zEavIJVNa0flqlbvKGyjcJaRTgLPDDkQv5rAVs+s5SySuBce 33T2o1OvRKfDGO+1sTq/da9VVdS93PqR4FowjxO8nJSbH8Ppc0djT4K7idQp3If3/I7S mG/PajVbn4bKei4BUEvi5i77+sJG/W+CmZwB7v+EDJ/Az3ETTZXuZuw6r0DFwqYWx7ji SmPfbb00mBXln+Gs/8bkbpi1iZmAD9V/Ptoce50wjoJn72Mogax2gUsroRBqeMPNJw8W ONSA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC03FhnwX+IEx+8dcFkomEDi6+XMU/DvGRErQApJVwReMGvhmEOn4cYUpxO5rINwoPQvKZVwCxHRWLpWqWg== X-Received: by 10.237.42.129 with SMTP id t1mr3454701qtd.147.1480011199469; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:13:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.200.41.61 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:13:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623FF8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67622717@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <583617A4.4000400@redhat.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623D9E@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <1540534.G53vByIeVs@xps13> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67623FF8@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> From: Ed Warnicke Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 12:13:18 -0600 Message-ID: To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Cc: Matt Spencer , Thomas Monjalon , Dave Neary , "moving@dpdk.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c05ac1acee2b905420ff5ff Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter 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: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 18:13:20 -0000 --94eb2c05ac1acee2b905420ff5ff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. > --94eb2c05ac1acee2b905420ff5ff Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would strongly recommend using the DCO rather than the C= LA.=C2=A0 Speaking as someone who's walked numerous
CLAs through hi= s legal group (sometimes more than once for a particular CLA), I find them = to be a *very* substantial impediment to contribution and community buildin= g.=C2=A0

Ed
=
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:27 AM, O'Dris= coll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Mat= t.Spencer@arm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 2:16 PM
> To: Thomas Monjalon <t= homas.monjalon@6wind.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Dave Neary <<= a href=3D"mailto:dneary@redhat.com">dneary@redhat.com>
> Cc: moving@dpdk.or= g
> 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 B= oard (in a 5-1 ratio, maximum 2 if I remember).=C2=A0 The Contributor level= member was there to allow Contributor access to the board at a suggested 2= 0-1 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 t= hat it's compliant with the Developer Certificate of Origin (htt= p://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/f= ile/d/0B8xTReYFXqNtR0wwRUhqUEpwTUE/preview) it seems to cover= essentially the same things with the biggest difference I saw being a gran= t of patent license. If we feel that a patent license is important then the= re are other ways to achieve that such as moving to the Apache 2.0 license = (https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) fo= r new contributions. Coverage with either approach (CLA or Apache 2.0) woul= d 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 b= efore they can contribute to DPDK would deter smaller contributors.

>
> /Matt
>
> ________________________________________
> From: moving <moving-bounces@dpdk.org> on behalf of = Thomas Monjalon <thomas.mon= jalon@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
>=C2=A0
> 2016-11-24 12:46, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne= ary@redhat.com]
> > > Fourthly, do we need to make a distinction between DPDK the = software
> > > project and the DPDK Project, the entity which will come int= o being
> > > under the LF? I ask, because participation in the DPDK softw= are project
> > > is clearly not to be limited to paying members, while partic= ipation 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 addin= g a membership category of Contributor to make this clearer, but most peopl= e 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 sec= tion.
> So it makes clear that we are talking about members of the governing b= oard.
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are c= onfidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipie= nt, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents t= o any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the informatio= n in any medium. Thank you.

--94eb2c05ac1acee2b905420ff5ff--