[dpdk-dev] Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2020-12-16

[dpdk-dev] Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2020-12-16

[Olivier Matz]

Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2020-12-16

Members Attending
-----------------

- Bruce
- Ferruh
- Hemant
- Honnappa
- Jerin
- Kevin
- Konstantin
- Maxime
- Olivier (chair)
- Stephen
- Thomas

NOTE: The technical board meetings every second Wednesday on Jitsi [0]
at 3pm UTC. Meetings are public and DPDK community members  are welcome
to attend.

NOTE: Next meeting will be on Wednesday 2021-01-13 @3pm UTC, and will be
chaired by Stephen.

1/ Lab investments
==================

Did current 101k /year investment reach the goal we set up earlier?
-------------------------------------------------------------------

- The lab is currently used for performance tests, CI
- It helped to find some functional bugs
- It is needed for baremetal tests or performance tests (which cannot be
  done by a cloud test infrastructure)
- The infrastructure is there, we can use it better

Governing board asks about the proposal to add 30k /year to increase coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposal is to increase from 20 to 40 hours per week coverage,
adding 2 more student employees.

One issue now is there is one person every 2 days. Is it possible to
have the same coverage hours, but having an every-day presence?

Governing board asks Techboard to come with a single name as lab owner
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A lab owner is a project manager that tracks what was agreed to do, and
find some help if needed. Ideally, it is a technical person used to
develop in DPDK.

No good solution was found. The following ideas have been mentioned:

a/ Round-robin from techboard? A quarterly basis is too short compared
   to ramp-up time, and longer periods are too long for one person.
b/ Can it be managed by Linux Foundation? (maybe ask Trishan?)
c/ Nobody

Question to ask to Govboard:

- What is the detail of the costs (infrastructure, electricity, people)?

Distributed CI should be high priority, therefore sharing test scripts
is important. It might be easier for a company to pay someone working in
its own lab.

2/ Offline documentation (.pdf) support
=======================================

We can provide an offline-html (archive) format. Indeed, pdf is hard to
maintain, and html is a better format (can be interactive with CSS,
links between different guides, ...).

3/ DPDK build configuration - future enhancements
=================================================

AR to Bruce to create initial version of the DD.
No progress yet.

4/ Asia DPDK Event status
=========================

- CFP should be ready (waiting for translation in mandarin)
- Moderators

- AR: Techboard members to contact chineese colleagues and see who could
  be interrested in moderating
- ~4 people are needed.
  Ruifeng (arm) and Song (arm) kindly volunteered

5/ List of supported OS
=======================

Which distributions should be tested?

In user guide, there is no such list. It looks easier to just advertise
what we test.

6/ List of OS to test in the community lab (compilation and functional)
=======================================================================

- For compilation test: a long distribution list is possible
- For functional / performance test: test some distributions, for
  instance: ubuntu-20.04, ubuntu-18.04, RHEL8, FreeBSD latest stable,
  Windows

7/ Plan for KNI (deprecate? move?)
==================================

Postponed to next meeting

8/ Position regarding TRex using a DPDK fork
============================================

Postponed to next meeting

9/ Update on DTS usability
==========================

Postponed to next meeting

Re: [dpdk-dev] Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2020-12-16

[Stephen Hemminger]

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 08:52:26 +0100
Olivier Matz <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote:

> Minutes of Technical Board Meeting, 2020-12-16
> 
> Members Attending
> -----------------
> 
> - Bruce
> - Ferruh
> - Hemant
> - Honnappa
> - Jerin
> - Kevin
> - Konstantin
> - Maxime
> - Olivier (chair)
> - Stephen
> - Thomas
> 
> NOTE: The technical board meetings every second Wednesday on Jitsi [0]
> at 3pm UTC. Meetings are public and DPDK community members  are welcome
> to attend.
> 
> NOTE: Next meeting will be on Wednesday 2021-01-13 @3pm UTC, and will be
> chaired by Stephen.
> 
> 1/ Lab investments
> ==================
> 
> Did current 101k /year investment reach the goal we set up earlier?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> - The lab is currently used for performance tests, CI
> - It helped to find some functional bugs
> - It is needed for baremetal tests or performance tests (which cannot be
>   done by a cloud test infrastructure)
> - The infrastructure is there, we can use it better
> 
> Governing board asks about the proposal to add 30k /year to increase coverage
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The proposal is to increase from 20 to 40 hours per week coverage,
> adding 2 more student employees.
> 
> One issue now is there is one person every 2 days. Is it possible to
> have the same coverage hours, but having an every-day presence?
> 
> Governing board asks Techboard to come with a single name as lab owner
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A lab owner is a project manager that tracks what was agreed to do, and
> find some help if needed. Ideally, it is a technical person used to
> develop in DPDK.
> 
> No good solution was found. The following ideas have been mentioned:
> 
> a/ Round-robin from techboard? A quarterly basis is too short compared
>    to ramp-up time, and longer periods are too long for one person.
> b/ Can it be managed by Linux Foundation? (maybe ask Trishan?)
> c/ Nobody
> 
> Question to ask to Govboard:
> 
> - What is the detail of the costs (infrastructure, electricity, people)?
> 
> Distributed CI should be high priority, therefore sharing test scripts
> is important. It might be easier for a company to pay someone working in
> its own lab.

I would like to not take all of tomorrows meeting discussing the CI lab.
What are the action items still left on this topic?