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

[Ed Warnicke]

I would strongly recommend using the DCO rather than the CLA.  Speaking as
someone who's walked numerous
CLAs through his legal group (sometimes more than once for a particular
CLA), I find them to be a *very* substantial impediment to contribution and
community building.

Ed

On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:27 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odriscoll at intel.com>
wrote:

>
> > From: Matt Spencer [mailto:Matt.Spencer at arm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2016 2:16 PM
> > To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>; O'Driscoll, Tim <
> tim.odriscoll at intel.com>; Dave Neary <dneary at redhat.com>
> > Cc: moving at dpdk.org
> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Reminder on Today's Meeting and Updated
> Charter
> >
> > 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?
>
> The need for a CLA has been raised a couple of times and we do need to
> conclude on that. The current DPDK process (http://dpdk.org/dev#send)
> requires that each patch has a "Signed-off-by" line certifying that it's
> compliant with the Developer Certificate of Origin (
> http://developercertificate.org/). Can you explain what you think is not
> covered adequately by this?
>
> I'm definitely not a lawyer, but from a quick glance at the Linaro CLA (
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8xTReYFXqNtR0wwRUhqUEpwTUE/preview) it
> seems to cover essentially the same things with the biggest difference I
> saw being a grant of patent license. If we feel that a patent license is
> important then there are other ways to achieve that such as moving to the
> Apache 2.0 license (https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0) for new
> contributions. Coverage with either approach (CLA or Apache 2.0) would only
> be partial anyway, as neither would apply to the existing DPDK code.
>
> My concern over a CLA would be that the need to sign and submit paperwork
> before they can contribute to DPDK would deter smaller contributors.
>
> >
> > /Matt
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > From: moving <moving-bounces at dpdk.org> on behalf of Thomas Monjalon <
> thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com>
> > Sent: 24 November 2016 13:26
> > To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Dave Neary
> > Cc: moving at 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 at 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/attachments/20161124/c235223e/attachment.html>