From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E6E8E7D for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 00:35:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so32672629pas.2 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:35:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber_org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lJezNUeXeynZ/hMS77bbN0DV3WPMLSmli21xefh22mE=; b=1ZJfb4Pa1GusA+BkN6AAvDKSlLamYlJYUtIMWvAiM+rKI4S7rsQe1AcG9UpBJ6uyRl jc8flWMtQh5Tz1sUiwaO0LiqBhz4aBkn/Waamb+owg7VCx+DlxbD53Nda8rLIRJLZJNr j+MxCHkupq+zHY4/XFoluq84sjPtBzojRGJ4kfpbOeIZ1uNwRht0hiE//+kxlduA5QY3 cK8soG+apGT0qv1j5fhxzZHgk2nBwIbdQEe2Jjx+Ze7Soc+oXqdJIoCiDpVfIEynd6Kh oTiMna/4q4BsRg1zJWoIpVUtllNgiYvd/RrqM5K74r+JY/W3IF99HtL/4ve25fjk3D4V iA8g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lJezNUeXeynZ/hMS77bbN0DV3WPMLSmli21xefh22mE=; b=TlbW2qFSsQCCTuvRba4hG/NURLV1qvPUzRLRaQSyBNkfSKPNXpi+6jCN2WKCaOZKof WfuekpPoZ2cJ5ySerg/NpBpqtEIN/5tvOiP/CNGHNTB6q3OH78Z8fYUPnebq64TmaEiX vyRRuQgv5gcR3QcIfKQ0vqq/Hh6JQ03Iv8IsKToUiwmfj9xgIsF4l+PYR+9vmj8J0bFf DqLgWosxZ3eQJu0WDoyeeL1M9rM5GDbMINvKlPlWD7UaYCM3qcdc9NYdpH8R6j6q2RkG 7g1Zbrc6cW1i195rt0lgGu8XSYtxMiMnlBVe69BDlAbzMaAedO5x4AvqFZk0BjyxTXqb 3bOg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkaSDZzkfod7rsU1otqBvsOSVRyLe2Lefd3kCHVNlZAAzkY0bzns079CkrpaD1wciItWR56 X-Received: by 10.68.249.164 with SMTP id yv4mr32516837pbc.51.1446593718530; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:35:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from xeon-e3 (static-50-53-82-155.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net. [50.53.82.155]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id es4sm31483661pbc.42.2015.11.03.15.35.18 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:35:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:35:30 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Pradeep Kathail Message-ID: <20151103153530.296cc8f6@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com> References: <20151102092153.3b005229@xeon-e3> <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE478A@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com> <56379DE1.9020705@redhat.com> <5637A387.3060507@redhat.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744CA22@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" , "dev@dpdk.org" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 23:35:19 -0000 On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:16:16 -0800 Pradeep Kathail wrote: > Tim and Dave, > > I agree that an architecture board membership should be based on > technical standing and contribution but at the same time, > if you are trying to bring a new hardware paradigm into a project, you > need to give a chance to some of those experts to > participate and gain the standing. > > If community is serious about supporting SOC's, my suggestion will be > to allow few (2?) members from SOC community for > limited time (6? months) and then evaluate based on their contributions. > > Pradeep Why doesn't one or more SOC vendors contribute patches or discuss the issues on the mailing list or at DPDK meetings. I dont think we need a behind closed doors planning session on this. Much prefer the old "consensus and running code model".