[ovs-dev] Request for comments on Open vSwitch joining the Linux Foundation

[Ben Pfaff]

[adding ovs-dev]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 09:36:47AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Since roughly October, some of the OVS committers have been talking over
> the idea of bringing Open vSwitch into a foundation.  Originally the
> group discussing the idea was Justin, Russell, Thomas, and me, but we
> later expanded it to include all of the OVS committers.
> 
> The kinds of changes we're interested in include transferring
> ownership of the openvswitch.org and ovn.org domain names, hosting and
> administration of the website, mailing lists, and forwarding email
> addresses for ovn.org, formalizing the existing processes for adding
> and removing committers, and obtaining support for organizing the
> annual Open vSwitch conference.  Possibly, OVS could benefit from
> joining a foundation in other ways, such as trademark registration,
> founding a centralized test or performance lab, etc., but those
> potential benefits have not been our focus.
> 
> We think that Open vSwitch development works quite well as a rule and
> we have no desire to disrupt that, so we also have a list of changes
> that we do *not* want to make.  These include introducing new
> processes for committers such as requiring copyright assignments or
> CLAs (contributor license agreements), significant changes to other
> policies and processes we have that are working, and significant
> technical changes to our repositories on the basis of e.g. legal
> requirements from a foundation.
> 
> One option is to form our own foundation.  To do this right, it would
> be a lot of work.  We did not seriously pursue this possibility.
> 
> We seriously considered three options:
> 
>     - Apache Software Foundation.  We had a call with members of the
>       Apache board.  Apache would offer OVS all of the services that
>       we want.  (They contract with the Linux Foundation to handle
>       events such as conferences.)  However, they are very "cookie
>       cutter" in that every Apache project is expected to fit into its
>       strictly defined model.  This would be difficult for OVS.  For
>       example, the only acceptable license is the Apache license,
>       which means that the Linux kernel portions of the OVS project
>       would have to be broken out into a separate repository and could
>       not be officially part of the project.  (We asked specifically
>       about this.)  As a second example, Apache requires use of their
>       CLA and all of the committers would be required to sign it and
>       to get their employers to sign it.  We considered these issues
>       to be too disruptive to the project.
> 
>     - Software in the Public Interest (spi-inc.org), aka SPI, the
>       parent of the Debian project.  In many ways it is almost the
>       diametric opposite of the Apache Software Foundation.  Projects
>       have a lot of freedom to operate as they choose, which is a
>       positive, but on the other hand SPI does not provide much in the
>       way of services.  SPI could accept assets such as domain names,
>       and hold donations, but it's questionable whether SPI could
>       relieve us from burdens in hosting and administering even
>       mailing lists, and we could not expect help in running events.
> 
>     - Linux Foundation (LF).  We held calls and meetings with LF
>       executive director Jim Zemlin and vice president Mike Dolan.  LF
>       has all the services we're interested in.  For established
>       projects, like OVS, they aim to avoid disrupting processes and
>       policies that work, so we could retain, unchanged, most of the
>       existing OVS governance.
> 
> We came to consensus among our small group and then among the
> committers in joining the Linux Foundation.  Since then, we've
> iterated through a few versions of a proposed charter for the Open
> vSwitch project within Linux Foundation.  I'm attaching a PDF of the
> most recent version.  The committers have come to informal consensus
> in favor of this charter.  VMware, which owns or employs owners of
> some OVS-related assets, is also on board.
> 
> Here's my summary of the document.  Very little is changing.  Under
> the LF, OVS would have a technical steering committee (TSC), whose
> membership is the current OVS committers.  OVS retains its existing
> documented procedures.  The most important of these is the procedure
> for adding new committers, in which existing committers nominate new
> ones based on their contributions to the project.  The details are
> here:
> 
>     https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/Documentation/committer-grant-revocation.md
> 
> The OVS committers span a number of organizations and specialties and
> represent the top contributors to the project.  A current list is
> included in the main repo:
> 
>     https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/MAINTAINERS.md
> 
> Inclusion in the group of committers is tied to an individual's
> contributions, not their affiliation.
> 
> LF expects OVS to be a rather small budgetary burden, due to the
> project's simple structure.  The TSC will coordinate with LF for any
> budgetary needs.
> 
> At this point, I'd like to suggest that people read over the draft
> and, if you have comments, bring them up here for discussion.  After
> allowing time for discussion, the committers will hold a vote on
> joining the Linux Foundation.  I believe that that is the final step
> in the plan.
> 
> Ben Pfaff (on behalf of all the OVS committers)
> 
> P.S. Please ignore the dates in the charter.  We will update them.