[Openframeworkwg] OFA OFWG meeting minutes and responses to AR re organizational recommendations -- new thread "documents"

[Ryan, Jim]

Again, I'm enclosing Woody's useful comment below to introduce a new notion, possibly the last of the admin procedures we'll need for the new WG. I'd like to start this thread and ask for your comments in lieu of the next meeting we have scheduled. I'm on vacation and can easily do email, but it's much more difficult to host meetings on the road.

I'm following up, sort of broadly, on what's meant by the notion of the "work product" of the WG. Again, as I understand it, we're moving towards agreement that there is code that the WG would deal with in the normal open process, and the "other" work products, that which isn't code. I think we're agreeing on what the approval vote is required for "not code", but we're not completely clear on what "not code" is.

The Bylaws deal with code, the OFED stack, and "not code" as described in the Articles I extracted and attached for your info. Please note the highlighted passages that deal with "Documents" in the language of the Bylaws. Please also note the IP requirements for Documents are specified

My proposal is simply that the WG will identify what are considered "Documents" as the work products of the WG. The identification of the Documents would be by simple majority, and the approval would be by a two-thirds majority.

Please comment on this and let me know if you agree this is essentially the last known admin detail we need to resolve for the WG

TIA and regards, Jim


From: Woodruff, Robert J
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:15 PM
To: Woodruff, Robert J; Paul Grun; Ryan, Jim; 'openframeworkwg at lists.openfabrics.org'; 'Coulter, Susan K'; Rimmer, Todd; Wood, Donald E; 'Jeff Becker'; Rupert Dance (rsdance at soft-forge.com); Berry, Frank; Hefty, Sean; Stachura, Tom L; Bill Boas; Benton, Brad (Brad.Benton at amd.com); 'Mani Subramaniyan'; 'Tom Reu'; Sur, Sayantan; 'Avneesh Pant'; Rebecca Moran (rebecca at openfabrics.org); 'Goldiez, Brian'; 'Christoph Lameter'; 'tzahio at mellanox.com'; 'linden at cmf.nrl.navy.mil'; 'Marcin Ocwieja'; 'Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)'; 'Dave'; 'David Goodell (dgoodell)'; 'Cesare Cantu (cantuc)'; 'Marcin Ocwieja'; 'openframeworkwg at lists.openfabrics.org'; 'Coulter, Susan K'; 'Jeff Becker'; Rupert Dance (rsdance at soft-forge.com); Bill Boas; Benton, Brad (Brad.Benton at amd.com); 'Mani Subramaniyan'; 'Tom Reu'; 'Avneesh Pant'; Rebecca Moran (rebecca at openfabrics.org); 'Goldiez, Brian'; 'Christoph Lameter'; 'tzahio at mellanox.com'; 'linden at cmf.nrl.navy.mil'; 'Marcin Ocwieja'; 'Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)'; 'Dave'; 'David Goodell (dgoodell)'; 'Cesare Cantu (cantuc)'
Subject: RE: OFA OFWG meeting minutes and responses to AR re organizational recommendations

AR: determine participation requirements

*         Bylaws again are mute on this for WGs. For the Board the expectation for participation is at least 75% of meetings and not to miss 3 consecutive meetings

*         From the Guidelines: this was covered in part by the notion "membership standing" which was tied to voting rights. Voting rights are maintained by attending at least two of the preceding four meetings. Voting rights can be regained by attaining 3 meetings in a row.

A quorum is attained by the participation of 2/3 of the member companies in good standing


I would be OK with the same requirements that the board uses for participation and remaining in good standing, I,e., 75% participation and not
missing 3 consecutive meetings.



From: Woodruff, Robert J
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 3:11 PM
To: Paul Grun; Ryan, Jim; 'openframeworkwg at lists.openfabrics.org'; 'Coulter, Susan K'; Rimmer, Todd; Wood, Donald E; 'Jeff Becker'; Rupert Dance (rsdance at soft-forge.com<mailto:rsdance at soft-forge.com>); Berry, Frank; Hefty, Sean; Stachura, Tom L; Bill Boas; Benton, Brad (Brad.Benton at amd.com<mailto:Brad.Benton at amd.com>); 'Mani Subramaniyan'; 'Tom Reu'; Sur, Sayantan; 'Avneesh Pant'; Rebecca Moran (rebecca at openfabrics.org<mailto:rebecca at openfabrics.org>); 'Goldiez, Brian'; 'Christoph Lameter'; 'tzahio at mellanox.com'; 'linden at cmf.nrl.navy.mil'; 'Marcin Ocwieja'; 'Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)'; 'Dave'; 'David Goodell (dgoodell)'; 'Cesare Cantu (cantuc)'; 'Marcin Ocwieja'; 'openframeworkwg at lists.openfabrics.org'; 'Coulter, Susan K'; 'Jeff Becker'; Rupert Dance (rsdance at soft-forge.com<mailto:rsdance at soft-forge.com>); Bill Boas; Benton, Brad (Brad.Benton at amd.com<mailto:Brad.Benton at amd.com>); 'Mani Subramaniyan'; 'Tom Reu'; 'Avneesh Pant'; Rebecca Moran (rebecca at openfabrics.org<mailto:rebecca at openfabrics.org>); 'Goldiez, Brian'; 'Christoph Lameter'; 'tzahio at mellanox.com'; 'linden at cmf.nrl.navy.mil'; 'Marcin Ocwieja'; 'Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)'; 'Dave'; 'David Goodell (dgoodell)'; 'Cesare Cantu (cantuc)'
Cc: Woodruff, Robert J
Subject: RE: OFA OFWG meeting minutes and responses to AR re organizational recommendations

AR: determine required voting majority levels

*         Bylaws again are mute on this for WGs. For the Board a 2/3 majority is required for key decisions such as approving releases of the OFED stack, chartering a WG, and so on. Other decisions are simple majority, and nothing requires more than 2/3

*         From the Guidelines: 2/3 a majority is required for the recommendation of documents (that was the work product for the TWG) to the SC

So what are we proposing for our voting rules (2/3 majority to approve something or a simple majority ?) and on exactly which things will require a vote and which things can just be handled using the typical open source development process for accepting/rejecting patches based on technical merit ?
We should probably define that up front.

My suggestion would be that for approval of releases of code, that the WG should have at least 2/3 majority approval.
Also, if there is accompanying documentation to support the code (architecture specs that define semantics, etc.) that a 2/3 vote should be required.
I would suggest not requiring votes for the day to day open source development of the intermediate code drops(before a major release),
i.e., submitting and integrating patches, fixing bugs, adding incremental improvements, etc.  For that work, just use the open source
development model that we use today as we do for all the other components that OFA produces.

Anyone else have an opinion on this point ?

Woody




From: Paul Grun [mailto:grun at cray.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2013 8:58 AM
To: Woodruff, Robert J; Ryan, Jim; 'openframeworkwg at lists.openfabrics.org'; 'Coulter, Susan K'; Rimmer, Todd; Wood, Donald E; 'Jeff Becker'; Rupert Dance (rsdance at soft-forge.com<mailto:rsdance at soft-forge.com>); Berry, Frank; Hefty, Sean; Stachura, Tom L; Bill Boas; Benton, Brad (Brad.Benton at amd.com<mailto:Brad.Benton at amd.com>); 'Mani Subramaniyan'; 'Tom Reu'; Sur, Sayantan; 'Avneesh Pant'; Rebecca Moran (rebecca at openfabrics.org<mailto:rebecca at openfabrics.org>); 'Goldiez, Brian'; 'Christoph Lameter'; 'tzahio at mellanox.com'; 'linden at cmf.nrl.navy.mil'; 'Marcin Ocwieja'; 'Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)'; 'Dave'; 'David Goodell (dgoodell)'; 'Cesare Cantu (cantuc)'; 'Marcin Ocwieja'; 'openframeworkwg at lists.openfabrics.org'; 'Coulter, Susan K'; 'Jeff Becker'; Rupert Dance (rsdance at soft-forge.com<mailto:rsdance at soft-forge.com>); Bill Boas; Benton, Brad (Brad.Benton at amd.com<mailto:Brad.Benton at amd.com>); 'Mani Subramaniyan'; 'Tom Reu'; 'Avneesh Pant'; Rebecca Moran (rebecca at openfabrics.org<mailto:rebecca at openfabrics.org>); 'Goldiez, Brian'; 'Christoph Lameter'; 'tzahio at mellanox.com'; 'linden at cmf.nrl.navy.mil'; 'Marcin Ocwieja'; 'Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)'; 'Dave'; 'David Goodell (dgoodell)'; 'Cesare Cantu (cantuc)'
Subject: RE: OFA OFWG meeting minutes and responses to AR re organizational recommendations

Perfectly stated.  Having mechanisms to help the working group operate smoothly should not be confused with a rigid, rigorous design process (which nobody wants).  They are meant to complement normal open source methods of developing code.
-Paul
.
.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofiwg/attachments/20130923/80bec5e9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bylaws on documents.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16111 bytes
Desc: bylaws on documents.docx
URL: <http://lists.openfabrics.org/pipermail/ofiwg/attachments/20130923/80bec5e9/attachment.docx>