From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com (mail-wm0-f54.google.com [74.125.82.54]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6652F9197 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 14:04:38 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmeg8 with SMTP id g8so14226482wme.1 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 05:04:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=9cua6HP4W36yl4Gut55GPzKiRZgu1cc4XkWGGsqst6U=; b=1RmHHSZHBnc6bddm6/WCzds/wijNU8SFgy/7Fkg5XQntY9o1U0N8+aNHPLMljpOSCE gMIraeRxwvW7Ntjs27dR6xNR17cdNWgbfQXvvFAtewZ4F3MJOBMRghxHxtlPxJ7vBI5j ZHeFElbZubZ5SOq4ZLnPCgXb3vUMdrBw2g/zmpa8TBtmxplpC6DUjW65z2PolQ0iKflN vg8wTMsm9hH7RlZ6astZjQ7p05lGMZB4mx8yPb00hSVvbw1EKEcnxpCqbxDe7kTfATen 6JDLW28fVBy0XAvjQE5yafFX54GWOrDyBmU7UluNWOkOZlft7epfbV+2Q6StrYUeiobU 1YKA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=9cua6HP4W36yl4Gut55GPzKiRZgu1cc4XkWGGsqst6U=; b=C6rFqQdGYPJCbefzoMtxbTCrFZb5/uaLXZorbw4r1v0W5CD+ImJ5eyU7XOzr3IS5MH D0oKpdWRGOJmX3U3W+Utbi15WqSLq7BqAAGsA0gas1z6msI6/hZGKSzy8xJmq2ejfICY jKjWZ7N//UM07cj7UaJbMRSsaqGqCWxtGZ6Ojvzc1KzbGHFnq+dRzJN2yMvb9R/gAROv F0i6495B+nymVqd2zLgGkx10fXFVE1vyqfKgy376B7OUrYmk6yhV52HXVA57zXDbIjsD ZKaPfnNTnTOmuW1rMtsvAcJ9RYwJG1Fh5HxlkzhbdH/73NbSwXYoa1kTeYALqrBujnOJ sOMQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmKcs0XYvqyHRzEIl8qmDulbGnHXgx7T4Dg052EGOQugVlQKxZ59Zgy5iaLCYFG+NTl+V5U X-Received: by 10.28.19.78 with SMTP id 75mr20890042wmt.101.1446555878214; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 05:04:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (guy78-3-82-239-227-177.fbx.proxad.net. [82.239.227.177]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id bk2sm27533892wjc.3.2015.11.03.05.04.37 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 05:04:37 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Pradeep Kathail Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:03:26 +0100 Message-ID: <2028836.pAx3E9MnhN@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744D202@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744D202@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" 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 13:04:38 -0000 2015-11-03 12:43, O'Driscoll, Tim: > From: Pradeep Kathail [mailto:pkathail@cisco.com] > > 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. > > I think we might be talking about 2 slightly different things. You're asking how new contributors can participate and gain technical credibility. Anybody can do that via the dev@dpdk.org mailing list. I'm sure patches, RFCs or discussions on changes required in DPDK to better facilitate SoCs will be welcomed. There have been some good examples of this over the last few days on ARMv7/v8 support and a NEON-based ACL implementation. > > The Architecture Board isn't intended as a forum for design discussions, which I think might be what you're looking for. It's intended to meet only occasionally to cover the items outlined in the proposal. We discussed composition of the board recently in Dublin and the community decided that, while users and potential contributors have an important role to play in the project, it should be composed solely of contributors. Dave Neary summed it up well in a previous email on this: "The TSC should be representative of the technical contributors to the project, rather than an aspirational body aiming to get more people involved." > > It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of others on whether we should consider an exception in this case. The Architecture Board would be useful only in case a consensus cannot be reached. It has not happened yet. We are a truly open community so you just have to contribute to make things happen.