[dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

[Thomas Monjalon]

2016-10-17 14:40, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> > 2016-10-17 11:52, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > > From: Hobywan Kenoby
> > > > 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.
> > 
> > It is simple to address this perception with fact checking.
> > The next releases will provide even more code for ARM and NPUs.
> > If someone submits some good code and is ignored, it is easy enough
> > to ping the mailing list and make it visible.
> > If someone sees any regression on his architecture, we care.
> > Please let's stop maintaining confusion on this topic.
> > 
> > DPDK *is* truly open.
> 
> Well, to be a little more specific, the concern I've heard on many occasions 
> is that 6WIND control the infrastructure for the project and so effectively 
> have a veto over what's accepted into DPDK. Your argument is that you've 
> never exercised that veto, which is true, but you still have the ability to 
> do so. That's not a characteristic of a truly open project. As stated in the 
> original post on this:
> 
> > - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and 
> > controlled by any single company.

Technically yes, we can improve that part, at the cost of more coordination
with more administrators, and without being sure that everybody will trust
this new organization.
I would like to highlight that this supposed veto cannot really be exercised
because feedbacks are open on the mailing list.

I'm worried that we are talking too much about a veto situation which
does not happen, and would mean ignoring some comments, whereas the real
issue is the lack of reviews.
Apart that, I still think such organization can be interesting for other
(legals and budget) reasons.

At this point, I must admit that moving the project infrastructure will have
at least one big benefit: stopping this kind of discussion.
And such discussion will probably never happen again because nobody will
take the risk of annoying the big vendors supporting the new organization.
One can wonder whether it is an improvement.

[dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:41 PM
> To: users at dpdk.org; dev at dpdk.org
> Cc: O'Driscoll, Tim ; Hobywan Kenoby
> 
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
> 
> 2016-10-17 11:52, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> > From: Hobywan Kenoby
> > > 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.
> 
> It is simple to address this perception with fact checking.
> The next releases will provide even more code for ARM and NPUs.
> If someone submits some good code and is ignored, it is easy enough
> to ping the mailing list and make it visible.
> If someone sees any regression on his architecture, we care.
> Please let's stop maintaining confusion on this topic.
> 
> DPDK *is* truly open.

Well, to be a little more specific, the concern I've heard on many occasions is 
that 6WIND control the infrastructure for the project and so effectively have a 
veto over what's accepted into DPDK. Your argument is that you've never 
exercised that veto, which is true, but you still have the ability to do so. 
That's not a characteristic of a truly open project. As stated in the original 
post on this:

> - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and 
> controlled by any single company.

[dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

[Thomas Monjalon]

2016-10-17 11:52, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: Hobywan Kenoby
> > 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.

It is simple to address this perception with fact checking.
The next releases will provide even more code for ARM and NPUs.
If someone submits some good code and is ignored, it is easy enough
to ping the mailing list and make it visible.
If someone sees any regression on his architecture, we care.
Please let's stop maintaining confusion on this topic.

DPDK *is* truly open.

[dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

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 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

[dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

[Hobywan Kenoby]

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 

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
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]

Technical Community Charter | 
FD.io
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 governance structure taking advantage of the services offered

[dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

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, Steph