[yocto-ab] Minutes: Yocto Project Advisory Board, 05 April 2012
Osier-mixon, Jeffrey
jeffrey.osier-mixon at intel.com
Mon Apr 9 18:03:27 PDT 2012
Yocto Project Advisory Board
05 April 2012, 8:00am PST
face to face: Linux Collaboration Summit, San Francisco, CA USA
Attending:
phone:
John Cherry, Mentor
Dan Stenberg, Enea
Sanil Kumar, Huawei
Mark Orvek, MontaVista
Jeff Osier-Mixon, Intel
in room:
Richard Purdie, Yocto Project/Linux Foundation
Sean Hudson, Mentor
Dave Stewart, Intel
Tracey Erway, Intel
Lieu Ta, Wind River
Davide Ricci, Wind River
Magnus Karlsson, Enea
Joe Kidder, Enea
Philip Balister, OpenEmbedded
------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda & Action Item Summary:
- Welcome Enea (Jefro)
all welcome
- BSP Summit report (all)
25 attendees
successful in providing level-set
ACTION: Jefro and/or Sean to provide blog post
(note: Dave wrote an initial post Friday)
- Collab Summit report (all)
25 attendees
flexible schedule, 1.3 discussion successful
Biggest subject discussed ‘what does it mean to be YP Compliant?’
If we do unconference again, should collect topics and post it
so people can join at given time
- Voting strategies (Jefro)
default is simple majority
ACTION: Silver voting rules defined (done)
ACTION: membership framework agendized for meeting later in year
NEXT STEP: discussion to continue on mailing list
- Proposal to create meta-ivi layer (Richard)
in case of conflict, Richard can reassign maintainership
guidelines at http://yoctoproject.org/about/governance
ACTION: Richard to manage this (and all) new layers
- Branding guidelines (Tracey)
Tracey defined 3 classifications of content
Mark suggests registration similar to CGL
Note: LF trademark guidelines at:
http://linuxfoundation.org/about/linux-foundation-trademark-usage-guidelines
ACTION: YP needs to create "statement of permitted use"
ACTION: Advocacy team to determine brand meaning, message
and form recommendation before next AB meeting on 16 May
Lieu to set up meeting
NEXT STEP: Advocacy team to meet with technical advisors
- Definition of "Yocto Project Aligned" (Richard)
Richard defined 2 branding identities (names for convenience only):
yocto-aligned: aligned with yocto objectives
yocto-powered: actively contributing to project
NEXT STEPS: existing guidelines satisfactory, Jefro to refine
on new website
- Request for Angstrom to align with Yocto Project (Richard)
discussion in progress on category divisions among project components
positive feelings about Angstrom as an alternative distro
some concerns over lack of testing, how to handle governance issues
NEXT STEPS: decision tabled until branding guidelines complete
------------------------------------------------------------
Full meeting transcript:
The meeting began with introductions from each person.
____________________________________________
Welcome Enea
Daniel:
As of last week, we announced Enea Linux, a new effort to provide
Linux to our customer base. Enea has a long tradition of providing OS
solutions, particularly RTOS, to primarily telecom customers. We have
now put togtether a Linux distro entirely based on the Yocto Project.
We think being part of the Yocto Project as an active member is good
way to succeed in this business. We intend to contribute a lot, and we
have been participating via IRC and the mailing list. This is very
early still - we have tried to support Linux before, but this is more
of
a real effort. Magnus can provide the real vision.
Magnus:
In 1990 Enea began providing operating systems and were successful in
the telecom/networking sector. 5-10 yrs ago we began to deliver full
solutions, integrating our own products w/third party & open source.
For Linux, we were delivering Wind River Linux, MontaVista Linux, and
others to round out the product as a full solution. Now we want to own
that end of our own business, and the Yocto Project seems tailor-made
for us.
Dave Stewart:
glad you have decided to join
helps us feel more legitimate, and it helps the project to have a
stronger network
Richard:
have seen Enea become more active on the IRC channel, and have seen a
few patches - it's great to see.
Sean Hudson:
Even as somewhat-competitors, we are very glad to see you on board -
it is part of the project's focus on non-differentiators. Welcome.
____________________________________________
BSP Summit report
[The first Yocto Project BSP Summit was held on Monday, April 2, at
Mentor HQ in Fremont CA with 25 attending]
Sean:
On-the-ground feedback positive from attendees
stressful for Sean personally
good discussions
only thing to make sure of is to keep momentum going
sometimes there is a tendency to have great discussions & not take action
all in all very positive
certain things we could do a bit better, tshirts aside
Richard:
it makes sense to create a summary & actions
went well - video/audio was stressful for Sean, but was very useful,
had comments that it worked very well
at the very least we managed to level-set the BSP questions
was successful
[note from Jeff, who also attended remotely - the audio and webex for
slides were both excellent]
Sean:
We'd like to do a follow-on with less focus on experts-only
Dave:
for sake of community, those not experts, need 3-5 bullet point conclusions
at a high level, BSPs created under existing format, seems to be thumbs up
some improvements to make for "usual case"- take initial BSP & make derivatives
also discussed release numbers
==>AR Jefro and/or Sean, blog post
Jefro took extensive notes of afternoon discussion
Sean will post longer version of notes next week, post on wiki
Sean: attendance was 25, had some last minute cancellations
Dave: the event was really appreciated
Lieu: we were overfed :)
Dave: want to mention to John, excellent job from Sean
[agreement from room]
John: noted!
____________________________________________
Collaboration Summit review
[The Yocto Project's annual Collaboration Summit workgroup day was held
Weds, April 3, with an audience of approximately 25, roughly half of whom
were known Yocto developers]
Dave:
from my perspective the morning session was ok, last few hours fairly casual
not heavily structured
some good things that came out of afternoon
discussion about next release
Richard:
the structure we had gave opportunity to those different people
bigest discussion topic - wht does it mean to be part of the Yocto Project
the AB needs to figure this out
was discussed at BSP Summit as well
Dave:
it was sort of an unconference, brainstorm topics,
focused on things people wanted to do
other tracks at Collab seemed well organized
we just did that at Dev Day, didn't seem as useful this time
Jefro:
the flexible schedule was on purpose in order to adjust to the needs
of whomever showed up
Philip:
if we do the unconference style again, we could do a better job of
collecting topics & publishing to other attendees
to plan around time slots
Dave:
if we had had a white board or flip chart might have done
Lieu: Dave did a good job
Sean: Dave did a good job, particularly getting 1.3 in focus
valuable discussion for developerss, other people to tie in
but I was on the spot, had to answer questions about MEL :)
Lieu: Dave picked on various people
Dave: very supportive community, I don't "pick on" people
Tracey: intro was great, topics that came up very relevant
Richard:
having 1.3 discussion & bringing up discussion with wider community
?: camera setup, was it recorded? yes, LF recorded
Sean: Libby, new LF person, responsible for editing
==>AR jefro talk to LF about recording
____________________________________________
Voting Strategies (Jefro)
Jefro:
we have never discussed how votes should be counted:
simple majority, always unanimous, etc
all votes have been unanimous so far
Richard: by majority
Dave:
from a rules standpoint it is simple majority, but we hope never get
to that point
hoping most decisions are discussed until members are happy
consider a divisive vote to be a fail
group should take 2nd look and continue discussion if strong dissenters
Lieu:
the default is a simple majority
Davide: things close to the steering etc might want to be 2/3 majority
Richard: it is possible for someone to abstain if necessary
Sanil: where we have differences, should discuss
Sean: voting for Silver members - no opportunity for separate discussion
if something needs to be voted, need to huddle up - majority?
thus the same problem replicates itself
Richard: would like to see written summary of how Silver voting works
John Cherry:
if votable items appear, contact silver for discussion prior to meeting
if not unanimous then Silver vote abstains
Tracey: what happens if silver members grows? we have goal to grow
membership - what happens with 50 silvers?
discuss later in the year
Sean:
any objection from current silver members? no
probably not going to grow by that many members
Mike Woster concerned about gold vs silver
==>AR all: continue discussion on mailing list
==>AR Jefro to agendize gold/silver membership framework for later in the year
____________________________________________
Proposal to create meta-ivi layer
Richard:
sent email - request to create a layer
does anyone have concerns?
Sean: this is where competition comes - mentor has strong interest in
IVI as well
if one company's stuff becomes platform of reference, that concerns the rest
we don't have a good way to address
maybe don't put something in that everyone else doesn't have
Davide: spirit of community
Richard:
like any other part of the project
dont want to get surprised
nothing there particularly onorous
I mostly want to make sure it is a good example of a layer
Philip: assume content is reasonable open source
Sean:
that's the thing
open door for maintainership being something have some influence
maybe jumping at shadows, but don't want to see layer from one
particular company steering aggressively toward their stuff
want to make sure keeping spirit aligned, contribute equally
Richard:
Someone at Wind River proposed the layer & offered maintainership
but if behaving in way to give WR any advantage, I can change maintainers
Sean: might not hurt to get some guidance
Dave: I believe maintainership guidelines on website already
at http://yoctoproject.org/about/governance
Sean: the AB can steer or advise if it becomes an issue
Richard: ideally we have guidance - I would step in, possibly come to ab
[Note to phone attendees: please mute if not talking or barking]
____________________________________________
Definition of "Yocto Project Aligned"
Philip:
what is a layer supposed to be?
rules for a maintainer
how about layers that are not yocto layers? what is a "yocto layer"?
Richard: keep separate
Dave: likely to have a Wind River layer? up to us
Richard: just like meta-intel owned by intel, meta-freescale owned by freescale
Philip: fine to have own vendor layer to maintain
Dave:
one set of core tech everyone can have
members as technical leaders
Sean:
need to make sure clear voting rules in place in case of division
unfortunate necessity
Richard:
there is a structure - I am architect, have a set of maintainers
if they are not working as maintainers, lose that power
Tracey: re wording on site - happy with?
all: existing guidelines satisfactory
____________________________________________
Branding Guidelines (Tracey)
[nb. the Yocto Project logo is a trademark of the Linux Foundation]
<slide>
Brand Promise: Products associated with the Yocto Project
logo and trademark are interoperable
How do we DELIVER on the Brand Promise?
Branding Guidelines
Three classes of products:
- Operating Systems
Should each of these include all YP-branded BSPs?
- Application Layers
compatible with any YP-branded OS - interchangeable
- BSPs
as a special case layer, must be compatible with
any YP-branded OS
General Association with the project – support the aims and objectives
General Association – strong support and contribution
Contributors, Members, Users, Providers
Is linkage to a particular version of the Yocto Project a requirement?
Would we need compatibility rules as well as compliance checkers?
Language: use specific? “Aligned”, “Powered by”, “provided by”...
Branding Document Creation
Branding Guideline notification
Where must this be announced, listed?
LF site, YP Readme, YP website, AB member requirements
What specific logo’s are available
Use of text treatment and “new” logos
Dave:
need to brand products
desire to use brand for those not making products (e.g. opensdr.com)
may want to use logo
Richard:
common question, how can I show alignment with yp objectives?
not certified
intimate that supportive of project, small contributors w/o money
also people actively participating, need a stronger association
so at least two
Davide: other possibilities
Dave:
anyone can contribute code/doc/videos/etc
this is specific about use of the logo
two cases for now
Davide:
if I am user end of day yp needs to mean something
the logo indicates value
Dave: end user looks at brands as way to make decisions, even if won't
themselves use brand
Tracey: someone wants to use the Yocto Project brand
Sean:
dont think any objection to someone doing that
if someone believes valuable, then de facto someone perceives valuable
e.g. intel inside logo has meaning
not our primary concern - as an OSV I want to say
"we built on top of the Yocto Project"
someone like Dell building product for someone else cares
we sell services through association with YP
Dave: you guys are blowing my mind
understand useful in (hypothetical) example
building block for other project
example of branded product want to build another embedded device with this board
Tracey:
the interesting part - interest in brand = interest to be associated
with all of us
Richard:
flip question around, what do we NOT want YP to be branded on
number of things not in keeping with product
if someone does crazy, throw stuff together not use layer mechanism, distro
policy hardware support, dont work with community, not contributing
patches, odd licensing
Dave: if violating GPL, LF would have problems
Richard:
need to take control of branding so someone doesn't slap YP on a project if
not meeting the project's objectives
we can have lots of discussions about which cases, but the
end user less important - right now software vendors usage is most important
given list of things we dont want
Sanil: key aspect of usage - can we publish on local site well known uses
publish guidelines on our wiki
Dave: good idea, some action that comes out of this defining guidelines
Davide: Yocto has mission, benefits some people, who are these people
might be a different perspective
migration important to our end users
Dave:
end users being people developing embedded devices
I think in the case of a "friend", still fall into 1 of 3 categories outlined
if branding requirement needs something like "must subscribe to LF
trademark guidelines"
things like "follows some king of legal non-violate law IP etc"
other than that, unless can tell doesn't fit into one of these categories
even toolchain = app layer
Richard:
understand why asking who are users, wrong way of looking
look at people meeting values of project
define category - specify what project trying to do
furthering Yocto objectives or not
antisocial etc
Davide:
what is mission - about users
what are social rules, can change
if start from user, identify technical elements needed to follow to
meet objective
Sean:
I think we are circling around what it means
contribution side as well
believe in project because it means something to you
some value in trying to understand users
Lieu: we can look outside at corner cases
Dave: perhaps someone should make proposal if they think guidelines
are not clear
as opposed to saying "who are they"
help us clarify it
Davide: offline?
Dave: perhaps - made one comment to be a separate class for
consultants & smaller contributors
can't use brand unless follow guidelies
Tracey: sent out
http://linuxfoundation.org/about/linux-foundation-trademark-usage-guidelines
Philip:
question about angstrom on agenda
if they want to put logo, what do they put on website?
obviously dont want to just plaster yocto logos everywhere
permission question
____________________________________________
Definition of "Yocto Project Aligned" (Richard)
Richard:
yocto-aligned - still trademark, support internal objectives of project
eg social aspect
as long as doing those things, can say yocto-aligned
2nd level perhaps "yocto-powered"
eg, if member of project- stronger set of guidelines
stronger messaging
Tracey:
key thing from LF, right to use mark dependent on rules - statement of
permitted use
we don't have that yet, need to create
allows us to specifically define how to use LF trademark
some generic descriptions - dont use as noun etc.
ability to use is based on criteria we define
Davide: logo meant to preserve & indicate quality
Sean:
I see two distinct things
1. technical question
2. branding
I am not a marketeer, feel that clearly tm use is marketeering branding
propose moving discussion to advocacy group?
need understanding from technical side codified
Davide: they are very connected
Sean: understand & agree
Davide: not sure we can answer question on best parctices
Sean:
I dont think we can resolve here, lets take point of action to move fwd
on tech side come up with clear technical definitions
let branding go on advocacy side
other point - Mentor does not want to see this turn into certification
Richard: everyone agrees with that
think do need some kind of process
talked about that level
lightweight - not certification
e.g. might be that the AB effectively agrees to a list of people who can use
Sean:
would like it to be completely obvious to whomeverwants to use the YP tm
Richard:
dont want everyone to have to go through the AB
"yocto aligned" should be easy to do
"yocto powered" goes to ab decision
if someone doing something antisocial, AB can find a method for sanctioning
Mark:
LF already has registration process in place for CGL, use something similar?
not certification, not tests - just fill out spreadsheet saying
comply with these things & can use brand
too heavyweight?
Richard:
my feeling is that is too heavyweight
if decent set of guidelines for powered, no brainer
Davide: techincal architect should be gatekeeper
dont want brand erosion
Richard: application to advisory board -same without spreadsheet
Mark:
another advantage, find out who is registered
proof in pudding
CGL is actually heavyweight in process - long spreadsheet
in our case much shorter
company publicly committing, customers will police
Davide:
typically mandatory & recommended things
mark can always add process later
heres what we all agree to
looking at cgl registration - many requirements from operators
Dave: we'd follow the spirit - not 100 items, maybe 5 or 6
Tracey: cool thing from mktg view is see who is using. build up ecosystem
John:
if we do reg type thing - Yocto Project is umbrella and doesn't
include everything
registry should be segmented over areas interested in
Richard: if not using particular area, no applicable on sheet
John: e.g. ide not mandatory, oe-core would be
Mark I think bitbake might be mandatory
Richard:
to deal with this, word requirements accordingly
for example, the build system should be OE derived
word statements correctly - we can do at technical level
Sean:
I had proposed separating, but marry together?
this seems like such important issue, form interest group?
come up with something that makes sense
not a short effort
--->move to create new interest group specifically for this
registration/branding purpose
need to be tech and marketing involved
get to solid consensus, bring back to AB
any objection?
Mark: agree, add give specific timeframe
Richard: agree, add assignment to someone to drive
Sean: nominate Richard for technical
Davide: can be on marketing side
Sean: advocacy has clear mandate
Richard: who will pull group together
Sean: puts self on hook to call first meeting
<agreement>
Tracey: not sure why advocacy team not driving?
Sean: need to make sure this is tech & advocacy together
Richard: so do in advocacy group, then pull in technical
Sean, Colin Bruce from MV
Mark: for this I can attend an advocacy session
Richard: anyone interested, go to meeting
timeframe: by next AB meeting 16-May
Lieu: add self to yocto-advocacy mailing list
Richard: propose on mailing list before next AB
so next meeting is just ratifiying
Davide: solid proposal, all members participating
Tracey: sum up: techs meet with advocacy, get ready before may ab meeting
Dave: create spreadhseet? then argue over specific line items
Tracey: one more point
does AB want to send brand promise to deliver on
agree on promise
what is point of yp, what trying to support
Davide: brand promise will come up in discussion
Philip:
(reads from website, first para from about page)
The Yocto Project™ is an open source collaboration project
that provides templates, tools and methods to help you create
custom Linux-based systems for embedded products regardless
of the hardware architecture.
does this say everythign we need to say?
Richard: need to put in somethign about interoperability
Philip: need test program...
Richard: a compliance tool!
Davide: LSB!
Dave: I am really uninterested in that
Dave: to build with what
things that interoperate
add something about stuff that use - ingredients
Richard: not what it is, but how it does it
<side talk about tagline>
Tracey: set promise now or shoot into group?
Sean: what trying to set?
Tracey:
look at intel brand - signifies something the second someone sees that brand
it projects corporate image
that's what Yocto project does - project the project's goals, delivery
Sean:
summing up so I understand:
talking about brand, association of brand with someone who sees it,
goal for us is to control terms of that association
want to decide now whether captured text here is association we want
people to have?
Tracey right, and what advocacy & tech group will do moving fwd is
determine how delivering
interoperable
Richard: one promise - yocto sticker on product, that particular thing
is modeling
best practices in open source linux development
means that by fact that done this, means if want to extend can,
implies education
interoperability comes out, spell that one out
modeling best practices - general quality implied
Mark:
I think that is too overreaching - see why interesting, be careful not
to reach too far out
keep simple
whoever using brand has thesee components
certifying that interoperability
Davide: back to question of who are users?
Tracey: advocacy can take offline
Tracey: overall goal is to finalize for vote by next AB meeting
Sean: would like to see proposal by may 1
Richard: let's meet before 19th to keep discussion going
Lieu: should I set up?
Richard: yes please
____________________________________________
Request for Angstrom to align with Yocto Project (Richard)
Jefro: I propose that we are not ready to talk about this yet
Richard: would like to communicate to Angstrom about time frame for discussion
Philip:
Richard and I can do that
"aligned", what does that mean?
Sean:
dont like term "align"
being one of other distro guys, dont have problem with it
talking about interoperability, brand promise
as long as making sure anyone we put in Angstrom/Poky/WR/etc really is
interoperable
Richard:
angstrom itself doing ok
dont know whether makes sense to make official distro
Philip:
interesting part for me is way to reach to end users
right now no way to build poky, load on board see what happens
how can take something built with yp, run on hardware
gives more reach
Sean:
I second - like idea of another distro - have to be room for more
two pure opensource distros in project makes lots of sense
also by default brings in angstrom base
Philip: need to see where goes
Davide: point reaching end users, know what promise is, reaches those confused
Richard:
some concerns: resources & quality
Angstrom builds a lot of things, some untested
almost the opposite quality proposition from poky
Philip: encourage some people working within YP & OE to take look at output
Richard trying to do in different ways
get variety of questions
now bigger can of worms
Philip:
very accurate, same though
worry about people downloading bad crap, getting more confused
Sean:
offer that in some ways playing devils advocate might help
been a mash of what poky was - lots of history
if make it clear by bringing in angstrom as another distro, poky another distro
someone yesterday asked how are these interrelated
we can show clearly
this is distro, this is metadata, this is tools, this is build system
core policies every distro
Philip: dependent on contributions from community
Richard:
another thing is resources - Angstrom somewhat strapped
as soon as officially part of proj, autobuilder? testing?
in total, major questions are resources, management, governance structure
Sean:
other concerns - worth exploring
not ready to say yes yet
Philip:
dont know what yes means in this case
one problem with YP is we have other distros (ubuntu, fedora)
inserting stuff into boards
this gives us a route for smaller contribs
that part is not angstrom-specific
Richard:
e.g. intel bsp, build dev board, firefox - does angstrom work with
firefox? why isn't oecore working?
bugzilla could easily be overloaded with "I installed this stuff" questions
Philip: agreed, how to handle bugs is an issue
Richard:
right now we do fix bugs in core
if sudenly have to fix bugs in meta-oe...
can we get 5x resources?
Philip:
also need way to say "angstrom part of yocto"
do we see angstrom as way to increase reach of yocto, increase members
Richard: and does becoming official part of project help or hinder
either project
Tracey:
I hear: really want membership, but negates brand promise
Richard: negates 2nd level, but positive on first level
Davide: brand promise is something we care about
Philip:
lots of people want meta-oe for additional recipes
need to make that work well
____________________________________________
meeting adjourned at 10:00am PST
next meeting Weds May 16, 9:00am PST
--
Jeff Osier-Mixon http://jefro.net/blog
Yocto Project Community Manager @Intel http://yoctoproject.org
More information about the yocto-ab
mailing list