[dpdk-dev] next techboard meeting (13th, October)

[dpdk-dev] next techboard meeting (13th, October)

[Olivier MATZ]

Hi all,

The next techboard meeting will happen on IRC #dpdk-board, at 3pm UTC,
this friday 13th of october.

The agenda is updated here:
    https://annuel.framapad.org/p/r.0c3cc4d1e011214183872a98f6b5c7db


1) ABI stability:
    - one LTS per year
    - 17.11 to be a LTS
    - every new API has the "experimental" tag
    - 3 Acks are needed for deprecation and they should come from different companies
  reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077937.html
  reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077935.html

2) update on license discussion concerning the optimized version of 64bit division
code from libdivide
  - any feedback from governing board?

3) update on IPSec offload (rte_security)
  - the conclusion on this topic was to post concerns/proposals on dpdk-dev
  - is there still something expected from techboard?

Olivier

Re: [dpdk-dev] next techboard meeting (13th, October)

[Wiles, Keith]

> On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:36 AM, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The next techboard meeting will happen on IRC #dpdk-board, at 3pm UTC,
> this friday 13th of october.
> 
> The agenda is updated here:
>    https://annuel.framapad.org/p/r.0c3cc4d1e011214183872a98f6b5c7db
> 
> 
> 1) ABI stability:
>    - one LTS per year
>    - 17.11 to be a LTS
>    - every new API has the "experimental" tag
>    - 3 Acks are needed for deprecation and they should come from different companies
>  reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077937.html
>  reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077935.html

I assume the person or company that pushes the notice can be one of the ACKs is this correct?

Also does the ACK need to come from a person working for a company or can this person be an independent developer? Maybe a very minor point, but someone that is working for a company could Ack independent of the company if so stated. Just be careful how you word the requirement, something like ‘Only one Ack per company or independent developer’ 

> 
> 2) update on license discussion concerning the optimized version of 64bit division
> code from libdivide
>  - any feedback from governing board?
> 
> 3) update on IPSec offload (rte_security)
>  - the conclusion on this topic was to post concerns/proposals on dpdk-dev
>  - is there still something expected from techboard?
> 
> Olivier

Regards,
Keith

Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] next techboard meeting (13th, October)

[Thomas Monjalon]

11/10/2017 14:41, Wiles, Keith:
> > On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:36 AM, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote:
> > 1) ABI stability:
> >    - one LTS per year
> >    - 17.11 to be a LTS
> >    - every new API has the "experimental" tag
> >    - 3 Acks are needed for deprecation and they should come from different companies
> >  reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077937.html
> >  reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077935.html
> 
> I assume the person or company that pushes the notice can be one of the ACKs is this correct?
> 
> Also does the ACK need to come from a person working for a company or can this person be an independent developer? Maybe a very minor point, but someone that is working for a company could Ack independent of the company if so stated. Just be careful how you word the requirement, something like ‘Only one Ack per company or independent developer’ 

As an open community, we should avoid sorting people per company.
I prefer talking about different areas of interest.
Anyway considering acks is a matter of confidence.
We cannot have strict rules, but we can provide some guidelines.

Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] next techboard meeting (13th, October)

[Wiles, Keith]

> On Oct 11, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 
> 11/10/2017 14:41, Wiles, Keith:
>>> On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:36 AM, Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com> wrote:
>>> 1) ABI stability:
>>>   - one LTS per year
>>>   - 17.11 to be a LTS
>>>   - every new API has the "experimental" tag
>>>   - 3 Acks are needed for deprecation and they should come from different companies
>>> reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077937.html
>>> reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077935.html
>> 
>> I assume the person or company that pushes the notice can be one of the ACKs is this correct?
>> 
>> Also does the ACK need to come from a person working for a company or can this person be an independent developer? Maybe a very minor point, but someone that is working for a company could Ack independent of the company if so stated. Just be careful how you word the requirement, something like ‘Only one Ack per company or independent developer’ 
> 
> As an open community, we should avoid sorting people per company.
> I prefer talking about different areas of interest.
> Anyway considering acks is a matter of confidence.
> We cannot have strict rules, but we can provide some guidelines.

Sounds reasonable.

Regards,
Keith