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