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

[Francois Ozog <francois.ozog@linaro.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3200 bytes --]

Hi Matt,

I coy/paste Mike Dolan's comment on CLA:

"Most of our projects use the Apache CCLA if a CLA is required. We have a
fully automated e-signature management system for CLA signings. You can see
the CCLA for Kubernetes for example here:
https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement
<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://identity.linuxfoundation.org/content/cncf-corporate-contributor-license-agreement&sa=D&ust=1480344167438000&usg=AFQjCNEbhgdm3M7dTLB1Xxwp8af7LJcC-A>
"

I had Linaro member companie lawyers have a look at it and they said it is
fine.

So it should be nice to have such CCLA in place in DPDK.

FF

On 24 November 2016 at 15:16, Matt Spencer <Matt.Spencer@arm.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
> /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 <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.
>



-- 
[image: Linaro] <http://www.linaro.org/>
François-Frédéric Ozog | *Director Linaro Networking Group*
T: +33.67221.6485
francois.ozog@linaro.org | Skype: ffozog

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6348 bytes --]