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

[Ryan Moats]

"discuss" <discuss-bounces at openvswitch.org> wrote on 06/19/2016 02:35:34
PM:

> From: Ben Pfaff <blp at ovn.org>
> To: discuss at openvswitch.org, dev at openvswitch.org
> Date: 06/19/2016 02:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovs-discuss] Request for comments on Open vSwitch
> joining the Linux Foundation
> Sent by: "discuss" <discuss-bounces at openvswitch.org>
>
> [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.

It doesn't look like the charter PDF is attached to the copy of mail
sent to ovs-dev.  The charter PDF can be found attached to [1].

Ryan

[1] http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/discuss/2016-June/021761.html