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

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

I've added a few specific comments below.

Firstly an apology. The version you edited is the original one I created. Due to Intel IT restrictions there was no way for me to give public access to that, so Mike Dolan created a new version at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OVzAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs which anybody can access. We're using that version now.

I wanted to keep the original version in place because people had entered comments and it's useful to still be able to see those. What I should have done was to change the permissions on the old version to make it read only. I've done that now.


Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary at redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 10:27 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll at intel.com>; moving at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated
> Charter
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I made a significant insertion/suggestion into the Charter, and asked a
> few related questions. The insertion was an attempt to describe the
> current state of the technical governance of the DPDK project. Please,
> if there are corrections to be made, make them.
> 
> My feeling is that this section should be owned by the Technical
> Governing Board, not the main Governing Board, so my first question was:
> should this be a separate document, referred to in the main doc? That
> way, the description of the governance there is not subject to change by
> a 2/3rd majority of the governing board (sec 12).

I was thinking the same thing last night. Mike Dolan's comments on Tuesday about not putting things in the charter if we might want to change them in future made me wonder if we should limit the scope of the technical governance that's documented there. My preference would be to use the charter to document the Technical Board as that's our governance/decision-making body for technical issues, but to leave the rest of the technical governance (git repository structure, sub-trees, MAINTAINERS file, what the maintainers' responsibilities are, how maintainers are added/removed etc.) out of the charter. We could then continue to maintain that info as at present in the Contributor's Guidelines (http://dpdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html) and DPDK.org Development page (http://dpdk.org/dev), and simply add a link to it from the charter. Then if we want to make changes in future, they can be agreed on the dev at dpdk.org mailing list without need to update the charter.

> My second question was how much we want to document the current state,
> versus the process in the abstract? Should we list the current members
> of the TGB, or instead point to a place which will be the definitive
> list of the current TGB at all times (including after changes)?

I'd be in favour of documenting the responsibilities etc. of the Technical Board in the charter, but identifying the individual members on the DPDK.org Development page (http://dpdk.org/dev) so that they can change without requiring an update to the charter. Again we can link to that from the charter doc.

> Thirdly, I proposed that we have one at-large Governing Board member,
> elected by the technical community, to add some more developer voice,
> and potentially diversity from companies who are not members.

In the current draft of the charter I've specified that a Technical Board rep should be a member of the Governing Board. Are you proposing another technical rep in addition to that, or does that cover your suggestion?

> 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?

> 
> Any feedback/comments/tomatoes to throw?
> 
> Thanks,
> Dave.
> 
> On 11/22/2016 06:08 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > Firstly, just a reminder on today's meeting. It's at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET,
> 10am EST, 7am PST. Access numbers are:
> >     France: +33 1588 77298
> >     UK: +44 179340 2663
> >     USA: +1 916 356 2663
> >     Bridge Number: 5
> >     Conference ID: 94641018
> >     Link to Skype meeting:
> https://meet.intel.com/tim.odriscoll/G7H113HY
> >
> > At last week's meeting we had some discussion on the responsibilities
> of the (Administrative/DPDK/Governing) Board and the Technical Board. We
> agreed we'd focus on the roles and responsibilities of these two bodies
> at today's meeting.
> >
> > Looking at the draft charter in preparation for today's meeting,
> responsibilities for these two bodies weren't clearly defined and were
> in different parts of the document. So, I've consolidated these into a
> new section 3 on Project Governance which hopefully will make things
> clearer. We'll walk through this at today's meeting.
> >
> > I've made updates in areas where I think we have agreement, but people
> should feel free to comment if that's not the case. I've added notes on
> things that I think we haven't yet agreed on and need to discuss.
> >
> > I've left the previous text in the document for now and haven't marked
> any comments on that as resolved. Once we've updated and agreed on the
> new text, I'll clean the document up, mark comments as resolved, and
> delete the old parts.
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338