[dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, November 29th
tim.odriscoll at intel.com
Wed Nov 30 17:01:18 CET 2016
Here are my notes from Tuesday's call. Please feel free to correct any errors or to add additional details.
Attendees: Dave Neary (Red Hat), Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Francois-Frederic Ozog (Linaro), Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), Jerin Jacob (Cavium), Jim St. Leger (Intel), John McNamara (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Olga Shern (Mellanox), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WIND). Note that there may have been others, but as people joined at different times it was difficult to keep track.
Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things:
Project Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs
Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049259.html
Minutes of October 31st call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000031.html
Minutes of November 8th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000058.html
Minutes of November 15th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000061.html
Minutes of November 22nd call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2016-November/000085.html
Current technical governance, including composition of the Tech Board: http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html & http://dpdk.org/dev.
1. Discussed Contributor License Agreement (CLA) vs Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO)
- Current process is to use a DCO.
- Francois-Frederic proposed using a CLA. This is based on input from the Linaro legal team and some Linaro members who have indicated that not having a CLA prevents them contributing to or using DPDK.
- Discussed what benefit they think they'll get from CLA. The main thing it adds is patent protection. This could be achieved in other ways, for example using the Apache 2.0 license. Neither solution would apply to existing DPDK code though so any benefit would only apply to new code.
- Vincent asked if there are problems with other BSD licensed projects. We agreed to check with the Linux Foundation (Mike Dolan) to see if they have any guidance based on other BSD licensed projects. I'll ask Mike.
2. Discussed comments on project charter
- Agreed that the Governing Board does not specify requirements for the Technical Board to implement. The two boards are peers. One can make suggestions to the other at any time, but these aren't requirements and don't have to be accepted.
- Discussed how members are added to/removed from the Technical Board. Agreed that the TB approves adding/removing members. Agreed that the TB needs to consider technical contributions from the individuals and support for all architectures when making these decisions.
- Discussed Dave's proposal for a representative of the technical community on the GB (in addition to the rep from the TB). Agreed not to do this and just to keep the single rep from the TB on the GB. Also discussed whether there should be a GB rep on the TB and agreed that this did not make sense.
- For voting, agreed that the quorum for a meeting for either board is 50% of the members. Majority required to pass a vote is 50% of the total board except for: a) changes to the charter require 2/3 of the GB; b) licensing exceptions require 2/3 of the GB.
- I've updated the charter (section 3 - Project Governance) to reflect these changes.
Tuesday December 6th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. We'll focus on the comments on the Membership and Technical Governance sections of the charter, and also discuss CLA/DCO if we have more input/guidance on this from the LF.
More information about the moving