From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Project Governance and Linux Foundation Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:27:23 +0200 Message-ID: <16801110.dITe5Z9CHy@xps13> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <580A1F94.9080304@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, users@dpdk.org To: moving@dpdk.org Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com (mail-wm0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B535B5688 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 21:27:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f41.google.com with SMTP id c78so44122454wme.1 for ; Sat, 22 Oct 2016 12:27:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <580A1F94.9080304@redhat.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" Hi, Thanks Dave for the report. I suggest to continue on the new mailing list: moving@dpdk.org Please register if you are interested in the structure move: http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/moving 2016-10-21 15:00, Dave Neary: > Hi all, > > We had a great session yesterday on this topic, I took some notes - does > anyone who was there have any corrections, or anyone who was not have > any comments? > > Thanks, > Dave. > > Tim led the discussion, and started by outlining that he saw there were > 3 different questions which we should treat independently: > > 1. Is there a benefit to moving DPDK to a foundation? > 2. If the answer is yes: there are two options currently proposed - a > low overhead, independent project under the Linux Foundation (LF Lite), > or joining fd.io as a sub-project. Which one of these is preferable, or > is there another option to consider? > 3. Are there any related changes we should consider in technical > infrastructure and project governance? > > I outlined some advantages I see to the Linux Foundation: > * Pool resources for events > * Provides some legal foresight > * LF standing behind a project gives some companies assurances that > there is good, open technical governance and a level playing field for > participants > > Stephen Hemminger asked if there was a sponsorship requirement. Tim > responded that it is possible to do what Open vSwitch has done, and have > no membership funding requirement. What that means is that any funds the > project community wants to spend needs to be budgeted ad hoc. > > A number of others (Shreyansh Jain, Matt Spencer) said they would like > to see a formal model for non-technical engagement, legal protection for > patent and copyright, and more clarity on the technical governance. > > Vincent Jardin said that whatever happens, it is vital that DPDK remain > an open, community-run project. > > A number of people expressed interest in the change, but could not > commit to funding. > > Jerome Tollet said that he felt it was important to have better test and > CI infrastructure, and that these cost money. He proposed that since > fd.io already has infrastructure and a lab, that this would be an > affordable option for doing this. > > Vincent and Thomas Monjalon suggested that distributed testing was a > better option - creating an opportunity for different people to send > test results to a central gathering point. Thomas mentioned that > Patchwork has a feature which allows aggregation of test results for > specific patches now. > > Tim asked if there was agreement on a move, and there was no opposition. > Vincent suggested opening a call for proposals to have a wider range of > choices than LF Lite or fd.io. Jim St. Leger said we have already had a > group who evaluated options and made a proposal, and we should not re-do > the process. > > Jerome recommended that we focus on requirements and criteria for > determining the choice: timing, governance requirements, budget, and > hardware/infrastructure requirements. Keith Wiles suggested that there > was a need for some budgetary requirement to show commitment of > participating companies. > > When asked about transferring the ownership of the domain name to Linux > Foundation, Vincent reiterated that his main concern was keeping the > project open, and that he did not anticipate that transferring the > domain ownership would be an issue. > > Moving on to question 2: > > I said that Red Hat is happy with the technical operation of the > project, and we don't want to see the community disrupted with toolset > changes - and it's possible to work with projects like fd.io, OVS, and > OPNFV to do testing of DPDK. > > Representatives from Brocade, Cavium, and Linaro all voiced a preference > for a stand-alone lightweight project - one concern voiced was that > there is a potential perception issue with fd.io too. > > Maciek K and Jerome encouraged everyone not to underestimate the > difficulty in setting up good CI and testing processes. > > To close out the meeting, Tim summarised the consensus decisions: > > * We agreed to move to a foundation > * A group will work on re-doing a budget proposal with the Linux > Foundation - target of 4 weeks to come up with a budget proposal for the > community > * There is a preference for an independent project rather than being a > sub-project > > Budget group: > * Matt Spencer, ARM > * Jerome Tollet, Cisco > * Ed Warnicke, Cisco > * Shreyansh Jain, NXP > * Dave Neary, Red Hat > * Jan Blunk, Brocade > * Vincent Jardin, 6WIND > * Thomas Monjalon, 6WIND > * Tim O'Driscoll, Intel > * Francois Ozog, Linaro > * John Bromhead (sp?), Cavium