[dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated Charter
Vincent JARDIN
vincent.jardin at 6wind.com
Tue Nov 29 15:50:51 CET 2016
Matt, Fifo,
> On 29 November 2016 at 14:50, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com
> <mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>> wrote:
>
> 2016-11-29 14:20, Francois Ozog:
> > 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.
>
> Why?
>
>
> In an early mail I said:
It is useless argument. We are not making any progress on it.
Assuming the technical folks do not want to change the current
git+review+sign-off process by adding extra paper work, does it mean
that Linaro and ARM cannot contribute do DPDK?
I feel we are beating a non issue here.
Thank you,
Vincent
More information about the moving
mailing list