[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Hi, Thanks Dave for the report. I suggest to continue on the new mailing list: moving at 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
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Thanks Dave for your work and notes: Comment inline > On Oct 21, 2016, at 3:00 PM, Dave Neary wrote: > > 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. What I stated was more around, if we moved to LF we do need a budget and companies that want to contribute with money and/or people it would be great. I wanted to make sure everyone knows anyone can contribute for free to the project and the companies putting money in project are not controlling the technical part development of DPDK. At one point a year ago it was thought you had to pay to play/contribute to DPDK. I also believe we do need a budget as the services LF provides are not free and we need to be able to support the project. If we can do something like OVS did with zero budget and still make it work then OK. The only problem I have is that model will not work, but I would like to be surprised. > > 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 > >
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
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 On 10/10/2016 09:33 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > This email is being sent on behalf of: Cavium, Cisco, Intel, NXP & Red Hat. > > > Since its creation as an open source project in 2013, DPDK has grown > significantly. The number of DPDK users, contributors, commercial products > that use DPDK and open source projects that depend on it have all increased > consistently over that time. DPDK is now a key ingredient in networking and > NFV, and we need to ensure that the project structure and governance are > appropriate for such a critical project, and that they facilitate the > project's continued growth. > > For over a year now we've been discussing moving DPDK to the Linux > Foundation. We believe it's now time to conclude that
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:04:19AM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com] > > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:27:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > 2016-10-18 17:04, Jerin Jacob: > > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:23:42PM -0400, Dave Neary wrote: > > > > > > I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with > > others who put their names to the post below, they do too. I think it's > > a perception that we need to address. > > > > > > > > > > I would say that there is still a perception issue, for companies > > who > > > > > look at the active developers, the owners of the project's > > resources > > > > > (infra, domain name), and who have heard anecdotal evidence of > > issues in > > > > > the past. I think the project has made a lot of progress since I > > have > > > > > been following it, and I do not believe there are any major issues > > with > > > > > the independence of the project. However, there are still > > concerned > > > > > parties on this front, and the concerns can be easily addressed by > > a > > > > > move to the LF. > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > How can we solve issues if you don't give more details than > > > "hear concerns" or "heard anecdotal evidence of issues"? > > > > Honestly, I don't see any issue in the current DPDK project execution. > > The concern was more towards the fact that multi-vendor infrastructure > > project > > like DPDK owned and controlled by the single company. > > > > We believe, Moving to LF will fix that issue/perception and it will > > enable more users to use/consume/invest DPDK in their products. > > +1. This is in danger of becoming a never-ending argument. We said in the > original post that one of the goals of moving to LF is to "Remove any > remaining perception that DPDK is not truly open". I believe that's an > important goal for the project and one that we should all agree on. > > Whether you choose the accept it or not, it's a fact that concerns exist in > the community over the fact that one single company controls the > infrastructure for the project. Moving the project to an independent body > like the LF would fix that. > > > Having said that, Does anyone see any issue in moving to LF? > > If yes, Then we should enumerate the issues and discuss further. > > This is a great point. Can you explain what you see as the benefits of > maintaining the current model? We don't see any additional benefits of maintaining the current model(when we compare with LF model) > As far as I can see, the LF model provides everything that we currently have, > plus it makes DPDK independent of any single company, and it also gives us > the option of availing of other LF services if we choose to do so, including > the ability to host lab infrastructure for the project, legal support for > trademarks if we need that, event planning etc. > > > > > Jerin >
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
2016-10-19 09:40, Dave Neary: > On 10/19/2016 09:04 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com] > > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:27:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > How can we solve issues if you don't give more details than > > > > "hear concerns" or "heard anecdotal evidence of issues"? > > > > > > Honestly, I don't see any issue in the current DPDK project execution. > > > The concern was more towards the fact that multi-vendor infrastructure > > > project like DPDK owned and controlled by the single company. > > > > > > We believe, Moving to LF will fix that issue/perception and it will > > > enable more users to use/consume/invest DPDK in their products. > > > > +1. This is in danger of becoming a never-ending argument. We said in > > the original post that one of the goals of moving to LF is to "Remove any > > remaining perception that DPDK is not truly open". I believe that's an > > important goal for the project and one that we should all agree on. Yes, being truly open and welcome all contributors is important. > > Whether you choose the accept it or not, it's a fact that concerns exist > > in the community over the fact that one single company controls the > > infrastructure for the project. Moving the project to an independent > > body like the LF would fix that. Sure I accept that one have concerns even if I don't understand them. I was just asking questions to try understanding the concerns. But unfortunately, we have no answer on these (see also how ZTE and China Mobile do not answer). > > > Having said that, Does anyone see any issue in moving to LF? > > > If yes, Then we should enumerate the issues and discuss further. > > > > This is a great point. Can you explain what you see as the benefits > > of maintaining the current model? As far as I can see, the LF model > > provides everything that we currently have, plus it makes DPDK > > independent of any single company, and it also gives us the option > > of availing of other LF services if we choose to do so, including > > the ability to host lab infrastructure for the project, legal > > support for trademarks if we need that, event planning etc. Tim, are you asking me to argue in favor of the current model? I said multiple times that having an infrastructure with legals may be interesting, and that resources for event planning sounds great. See also this answer: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049098.html > The one issue I am aware of is that the Linux Foundation, in our > previous discussions, requested that they take ownership of the dpdk.org > domain name and management of the DNS, to ensure that the website and > community infrastructure were not beholden to a single project member - > is that still an issue? Sorry to not be able to answer, I do not manage this adminitrative question. I think the discussion must continue during the summit. My conclusion on this thread: I was very active in the creation of dpdk.org with the goal of gathering and welcoming every contributors. That's why I want to understand the feedbacks. Then I will embrace the collective decision with the joy to see this successful project satisfying its community.
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Hi, On 10/19/2016 09:04 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: >> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com] >> Having said that, Does anyone see any issue in moving to LF? >> If yes, Then we should enumerate the issues and discuss further. > > This is a great point. Can you explain what you see as the benefits of > maintaining the current model? As far as I can see, the LF model provides > everything that we currently have, plus it makes DPDK independent of any > single company, and it also gives us the option of availing of other LF > services if we choose to do so, including the ability to host lab > infrastructure for the project, legal support for trademarks if we need that, > event planning etc. The one issue I am aware of is that the Linux Foundation, in our previous discussions, requested that they take ownership of the dpdk.org domain name and management of the DNS, to ensure that the website and community infrastructure were not beholden to a single project member - is that still an issue? Regards, Dave. -- 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
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob at caviumnetworks.com] > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:27:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-10-18 17:04, Jerin Jacob: > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:23:42PM -0400, Dave Neary wrote: > > > > > I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with > others who put their names to the post below, they do too. I think it's > a perception that we need to address. > > > > > > > > I would say that there is still a perception issue, for companies > who > > > > look at the active developers, the owners of the project's > resources > > > > (infra, domain name), and who have heard anecdotal evidence of > issues in > > > > the past. I think the project has made a lot of progress since I > have > > > > been following it, and I do not believe there are any major issues > with > > > > the independence of the project. However, there are still > concerned > > > > parties on this front, and the concerns can be easily addressed by > a > > > > move to the LF. > > > > > > +1 > > > > How can we solve issues if you don't give more details than > > "hear concerns" or "heard anecdotal evidence of issues"? > > Honestly, I don't see any issue in the current DPDK project execution. > The concern was more towards the fact that multi-vendor infrastructure > project > like DPDK owned and controlled by the single company. > > We believe, Moving to LF will fix that issue/perception and it will > enable more users to use/consume/invest DPDK in their products. +1. This is in danger of becoming a never-ending argument. We said in the original post that one of the goals of moving to LF is to "Remove any remaining perception that DPDK is not truly open". I believe that's an important goal for the project and one that we should all agree on. Whether you choose the accept it or not, it's a fact that concerns exist in the community over the fact that one single company controls the infrastructure for the project. Moving the project to an independent body like the LF would fix that. > Having said that, Does anyone see any issue in moving to LF? > If yes, Then we should enumerate the issues and discuss further. This is a great point. Can you explain what you see as the benefits of maintaining the current model? As far as I can see, the LF model provides everything that we currently have, plus it makes DPDK independent of any single company, and it also gives us the option of availing of other LF services if we choose to do so, including the ability to host lab infrastructure for the project, legal support for trademarks if we need that, event planning etc. > > Jerin
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:27:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 2016-10-18 17:04, Jerin Jacob: > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:23:42PM -0400, Dave Neary wrote: > > > > I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with others who > > > > put their names to the post below, they do too. I think it's a > > > > perception that we need to address. > > > > > > I would say that there is still a perception issue, for companies who > > > look at the active developers, the owners of the project's resources > > > (infra, domain name), and who have heard anecdotal evidence of issues in > > > the past. I think the project has made a lot of progress since I have > > > been following it, and I do not believe there are any major issues with > > > the independence of the project. However, there are still concerned > > > parties on this front, and the concerns can be easily addressed by a > > > move to the LF. > > > > +1 > > How can we solve issues if you don't give more details than > "hear concerns" or "heard anecdotal evidence of issues"? Honestly, I don't see any issue in the current DPDK project execution. The concern was more towards the fact that multi-vendor infrastructure project like DPDK owned and controlled by the single company. We believe, Moving to LF will fix that issue/perception and it will enable more users to use/consume/invest DPDK in their products. Having said that, Does anyone see any issue in moving to LF? If yes, Then we should enumerate the issues and discuss further. Jerin
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:23:42PM -0400, Dave Neary wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/17/2016 07:52 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> I don't really understand what can be gained by moving to Linux > >> Foundation, but I am almost sure that no individual expert will be able > >> to take any leaderhip role as those roles will be fulfilled by Platinum, > >> Gold or Silver members: right ? > > > > No. If DPDK were to move to LF as an independent project, then as discussed > > at the Userspace event in Dublin last year, and as documented in the > > original post below, the intention would be not to make any significant > > changes to the technical governance. > > > > If DPDK were to move to FD.io the situation would be the same. The FD.io > > Technical Community Charter > > (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) specifies how > > Project Technical Leaders and Committers are nominated and approved, but > > there's no requirement for people in those roles to come from Platinum, > > Gold or Silver FD.io members. Those decisions are based purely on technical > > merit. > > I just want to second what Tim said - it's important for Red Hat, at > least, that the technical governance of a project be kept separate from > any membership of an organization managing the budget for the project. > > The technical management of the project can also be discussed, but it is > out of scope, IMHO, when talking about moving to fd.io or the Linux > Foundation. > > >> The current DPDK version can run on virtually all processors (Intel, IBM > >> and ARM) and leverage all NICs: is there **really** anyone questionning > >> openness of the community? > > > > I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with others who put > > their names to the post below, they do too. I think it's a perception that > > we need to address. > > I would say that there is still a perception issue, for companies who > look at the active developers, the owners of the project's resources > (infra, domain name), and who have heard anecdotal evidence of issues in > the past. I think the project has made a lot of progress since I have > been following it, and I do not believe there are any major issues with > the independence of the project. However, there are still concerned > parties on this front, and the concerns can be easily addressed by a > move to the LF. +1 > > Regards, > Dave. > > -- > 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
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
2016-10-18 17:04, Jerin Jacob: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:23:42PM -0400, Dave Neary wrote: > > > I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with others who > > > put their names to the post below, they do too. I think it's a perception > > > that we need to address. > > > > I would say that there is still a perception issue, for companies who > > look at the active developers, the owners of the project's resources > > (infra, domain name), and who have heard anecdotal evidence of issues in > > the past. I think the project has made a lot of progress since I have > > been following it, and I do not believe there are any major issues with > > the independence of the project. However, there are still concerned > > parties on this front, and the concerns can be easily addressed by a > > move to the LF. > > +1 How can we solve issues if you don't give more details than "hear concerns" or "heard anecdotal evidence of issues"?
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Hi, On 10/17/2016 07:52 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: >> -Original Message- >> I don't really understand what can be gained by moving to Linux >> Foundation, but I am almost sure that no individual expert will be able >> to take any leaderhip role as those roles will be fulfilled by Platinum, >> Gold or Silver members: right ? > > No. If DPDK were to move to LF as an independent project, then as discussed > at the Userspace event in Dublin last year, and as documented in the original > post below, the intention would be not to make any significant changes to the > technical governance. > > If DPDK were to move to FD.io the situation would be the same. The FD.io > Technical Community Charter > (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) specifies how Project > Technical Leaders and Committers are nominated and approved, but there's no > requirement for people in those roles to come from Platinum, Gold or Silver > FD.io members. Those decisions are based purely on technical merit. I just want to second what Tim said - it's important for Red Hat, at least, that the technical governance of a project be kept separate from any membership of an organization managing the budget for the project. The technical management of the project can also be discussed, but it is out of scope, IMHO, when talking about moving to fd.io or the Linux Foundation. >> The current DPDK version can run on virtually all processors (Intel, IBM >> and ARM) and leverage all NICs: is there **really** anyone questionning >> openness of the community? > > I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with others who put > their names to the post below, they do too. I think it's a perception that we > need to address. I would say that there is still a perception issue, for companies who look at the active developers, the owners of the project's resources (infra, domain name), and who have heard anecdotal evidence of issues in the past. I think the project has made a lot of progress since I have been following it, and I do not believe there are any major issues with the independence of the project. However, there are still concerned parties on this front, and the concerns can be easily addressed by a move to the LF. Regards, Dave. -- 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
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Hi HK, > -Original Message- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Hobywan Kenoby > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:24 AM > To: O'Driscoll, Tim ; dev at dpdk.org; > users at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation > > Hi Tim, > > > The Linux kernel community has a governance close to DPDK. It did allow > companies to grow largebusinesses and indivuals to take an > active and even influencial roles based on their technical expertise and > merits. > > I don't really understand what can be gained by moving to Linux > Foundation, but I am almost sure that no individual expert will be able > to take any leaderhip role as those roles will be fulfilled by Platinum, > Gold or Silver members: right ? No. If DPDK were to move to LF as an independent project, then as discussed at the Userspace event in Dublin last year, and as documented in the original post below, the intention would be not to make any significant changes to the technical governance. If DPDK were to move to FD.io the situation would be the same. The FD.io Technical Community Charter (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) specifies how Project Technical Leaders and Committers are nominated and approved, but there's no requirement for people in those roles to come from Platinum, Gold or Silver FD.io members. Those decisions are based purely on technical merit. > VPP is a virtual switch that has its own event model that may compete > with the new model proposed by Intel, Cavium and NXP. What would be the > acceptability of such a proposal if DPDK would have been folded into > FD.IO? Acceptance of the libeventdev proposal would be no different if DPDK were part of FD.io. It would be reviewed and accepted based on its technical merit. FD.io is an umbrella project comprising a number of individual sub-projects. Those sub-projects are free to make their own technical decisions. This is documented in the Guiding Principles section of the FD.io Technical Community Charter (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter): 4.Technical decisions (including release decisions) for a project should be made by consensus of that project's Committers. If consensus cannot be reached, decisions are made by a majority vote of a project's Committers. Committers on a project may, by majority vote, delegate (or revoke delegation of) any portion of the project's decisions to an alternate open, documented, traceable decision making process. > Intellectual property is probably properly handled in this community (I > don't really know a lot about this): are there things to be done on DPDK > to match was proved to be sufficient in Linux kernel? I think Intellectual Property is already properly handled within DPDK. Being part of the Linux Foundation would provide a legal framework for dealing with any trademark or other legal issues that may occur in future. > The current DPDK version can run on virtually all processors (Intel, IBM > and ARM) and leverage all NICs: is there **really** anyone questionning > openness of the community? I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with others who put their names to the post below, they do too. I think it's a perception that we need to address. > > - HK > > > > > From: dev on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:33 AM > To: dev at dpdk.org; users at dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation > > This email is being sent on behalf of: Cavium, Cisco, Intel, NXP & Red > Hat. > > > Since its creation as an open source project in 2013, DPDK has grown > significantly. The number of DPDK users, contributors, commercial > products that use DPDK and open source projects that depend on it have > all increased consistently over that time. DPDK is now a key ingredient > in networking and NFV, and we need to ensure that the project structure > and governance are appropriate for such a critical project, and that > they facilitate the project's continued growth. > > For over a year now we've been discussing moving DPDK to the Linux > Foundation. We believe it's now time to conclude that discussion and > make the move. The benefits of doing this would include: > - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and > controlled by any single company. > - Remove any remaining perception that DPDK is not truly open. > - Allow the project to avail of the infrastructure and services provided > by the Linux Foundation. These include things like: Ability to host > infrastructure for integration and testing (the FD.io CSIT lab is an > example of this - see https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed); > Support for le
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Hi Tim, The Linux kernel community has a governance close to DPDK. It did allow companies to grow largebusinesses and indivuals to take an active and even influencial roles based on their technical expertise and merits. I don't really understand what can be gained by moving to Linux Foundation, but I am almost sure that no individual expert will be able to take any leaderhip role as those roles will be fulfilled by Platinum, Gold or Silver members: right ? VPP is a virtual switch that has its own event model that may compete with the new model proposed by Intel, Cavium and NXP. What would be the acceptability of such a proposal if DPDK would have been folded into FD.IO? Intellectual property is probably properly handled in this community (I don't really know a lot about this): are there things to be done on DPDK to match was proved to be sufficient in Linux kernel? The current DPDK version can run on virtually all processors (Intel, IBM and ARM) and leverage all NICs: is there **really** anyone questionning openness of the community? - HK From: dev on behalf of O'Driscoll, Tim <tim.odrisc...@intel.com> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 10:33 AM To: dev at dpdk.org; users at dpdk.org Subject: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation This email is being sent on behalf of: Cavium, Cisco, Intel, NXP & Red Hat. Since its creation as an open source project in 2013, DPDK has grown significantly. The number of DPDK users, contributors, commercial products that use DPDK and open source projects that depend on it have all increased consistently over that time. DPDK is now a key ingredient in networking and NFV, and we need to ensure that the project structure and governance are appropriate for such a critical project, and that they facilitate the project's continued growth. For over a year now we've been discussing moving DPDK to the Linux Foundation. We believe it's now time to conclude that discussion and make the move. The benefits of doing this would include: - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and controlled by any single company. - Remove any remaining perception that DPDK is not truly open. - Allow the project to avail of the infrastructure and services provided by the Linux Foundation. These include things like: Ability to host infrastructure for integration and testing (the FD.io CSIT lab is an example of this - see https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed); Support for legal issues including trademarks and branding, and the ability to sign agreements on behalf of the project; Ability to pool resources for events and brand promotion; Safe haven for community IP resources. CSIT/CSIT LF testbed - fd.io<https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed> wiki.fd.io FD.IO CSIT testbed - Server HW Configuration. CSIT testbed contains following three HW configuration types of UCS x86 servers, across total of ten servers provided: We don't propose to debate the details here. Instead, an open discussion session on DPDK Project Growth has been included in the agenda for the DPDK Summit Userspace 2016 event in Dublin. We propose using that session to agree that the DPDK project will move to the Linux Foundation, and then to move on to discussing the specifics. Things that we'll need to consider include: - Whether DPDK moves to the Linux Foundation as an independent project or as part of a larger project like FD.io. - Creation of a project charter similar to those created for FD.io (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) and Open vSwitch (see http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160619/5a2df53e/attachment-0001.pdf). [https://fd.io/sites/cpstandard/files/theme/backgrounds/bg.jpg]<https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter> Technical Community Charter | FD.io<https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter> fd.io 3.3.4 Project Reviews. For each review, there will be a publicly visible wiki/web template filled out containing relevant review information. The review document must ... - Agreement on budget, membership levels etc. A draft budget was created by the LF during previous discussions (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=302618256), but it is possible to adopt an even more lightweight model. We could look at alternatives to the Linux Foundation, but a) we've been talking to the LF for over a year now, and b) the preponderance of networking projects in LF, like ODL, FD.io, and OVS, makes it a natural destination for DPDK. As highlighted in previous discussions on this topic, it's important to stress that the intent is not to make significant changes to the technical governance and decision making of the project. The project has a strong set of maintainers and a Technical Board in place already. What's required is to supplement that with an open
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Hi, This is a really interesting use case. Questions below, 2016-10-12 13:44, qin.chunhua at zte.com.cn: > ZTE is supportive of improving the DPDK project governance including > moving the project to the Linux Foundation. > DPDK has been used in lots of ZTE's equipments and solutions such as > BBU,RNC,EPC,vEPC,vBRAS,vCPE,vRouter,vSwitch,and so on for many years. > We have also done some optimization in DPDK. You mean you made some optimizations to DPDK but keep them secret? > If the DPDK project governance moves to the Linux Foundation, > we think this will promote ZTE and other companies to contribute in DPDK. Why it would help you to contribute? Why not contribute today? The project is truly open, a lot of major companies are contributing, why not yours?
[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
This email is being sent on behalf of: Cavium, Cisco, Intel, NXP & Red Hat. Since its creation as an open source project in 2013, DPDK has grown significantly. The number of DPDK users, contributors, commercial products that use DPDK and open source projects that depend on it have all increased consistently over that time. DPDK is now a key ingredient in networking and NFV, and we need to ensure that the project structure and governance are appropriate for such a critical project, and that they facilitate the project's continued growth. For over a year now we've been discussing moving DPDK to the Linux Foundation. We believe it's now time to conclude that discussion and make the move. The benefits of doing this would include: - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and controlled by any single company. - Remove any remaining perception that DPDK is not truly open. - Allow the project to avail of the infrastructure and services provided by the Linux Foundation. These include things like: Ability to host infrastructure for integration and testing (the FD.io CSIT lab is an example of this - see https://wiki.fd.io/view/CSIT/CSIT_LF_testbed); Support for legal issues including trademarks and branding, and the ability to sign agreements on behalf of the project; Ability to pool resources for events and brand promotion; Safe haven for community IP resources. We don't propose to debate the details here. Instead, an open discussion session on DPDK Project Growth has been included in the agenda for the DPDK Summit Userspace 2016 event in Dublin. We propose using that session to agree that the DPDK project will move to the Linux Foundation, and then to move on to discussing the specifics. Things that we'll need to consider include: - Whether DPDK moves to the Linux Foundation as an independent project or as part of a larger project like FD.io. - Creation of a project charter similar to those created for FD.io (https://fd.io/governance/technical-community-charter) and Open vSwitch (see http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20160619/5a2df53e/attachment-0001.pdf). - Agreement on budget, membership levels etc. A draft budget was created by the LF during previous discussions (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8Mus9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=302618256), but it is possible to adopt an even more lightweight model. We could look at alternatives to the Linux Foundation, but a) we've been talking to the LF for over a year now, and b) the preponderance of networking projects in LF, like ODL, FD.io, and OVS, makes it a natural destination for DPDK. As highlighted in previous discussions on this topic, it's important to stress that the intent is not to make significant changes to the technical governance and decision making of the project. The project has a strong set of maintainers and a Technical Board in place already. What's required is to supplement that with an open governance structure taking advantage of the services offered by the Linux Foundation. The purpose of this email is to outline what we want to achieve during that discussion session in Dublin, and to allow people to consider the issue and prepare in advance. If people want to comment via email on the mailing list, that's obviously fine, but we believe that an open and frank discussion when people meet in person in Dublin is the best way to progress this. For reference, below is a brief history of the previous discussions on this topic: September 2015: - A DPDK community call was held to discuss project growth and possible improvements. This was the first public discussion on possible governance changes. The agreed next step was to discuss this in more detail at the 2015 DPDK Summit Userspace event Dublin. Minutes of the call are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/024120.html. October 2015: - An open discussion session on project governance was held at the 2015 DPDK Summit Userspace event. For technical governance, we agreed to investigate creating a technical steering committee. For non-technical governance (including things like event planning, legal and trademark issues, hosting of the website etc.), we agreed to work with the Linux Foundation on a proposal for a lightweight governance model for DPDK. Minutes of the discussion are at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/024825.html. - The proposal for a technical steering committee was subsequently discussed on the mailing list (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026598.html) and agreed, leading to the creation of the DPDK Technical Board (http://dpdk.org/dev#board). December 2015: - A community call was held to discuss migration to the Linux Foundation. Mike Dolan (VP of Strategic Programs at The Linux Foundation) gave an overview of the LF and the services they can provide. We agreed to form a small sub-team (Dave Neary, Thomas Monjalon,
