From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6D28E6C for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 22:44:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2015 13:44:56 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,236,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="810016633" Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.155]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Nov 2015 13:44:54 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.138]) by IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.98]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:44:53 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Bagh Fares , Dave Neary , "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" , Stephen Hemminger Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) Thread-Index: AdETO3UNrTlKQ/IxR1OwaDiPUSWx2gCV4JSAAAA2sAAAABzCgAAAdDuAAABjPoAAAEDSAAAHU5bQ Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 21:44:52 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744CA22@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20151102092153.3b005229@xeon-e3> <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE478A@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com> <56379DE1.9020705@redhat.com> <5637A387.3060507@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Pradeep Kathail \(pkathail@cisco.com\)" 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: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 21:44:58 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bagh Fares > Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 6:03 PM > To: Dave Neary; CHIOSI, MARGARET T; Stephen Hemminger > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pradeep Kathail (pkathail@cisco.com) > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at > DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) >=20 > Yes. Thank you. What we like is to get to a point where we discuss API > and align on APIs for SOC as Margaret mention. As you know Arm has been > driving ODP as the API for SOC. > What we like to do is to drive the APIs under DPDK even for Arm SOC. > Long term, and based on shrinking silicon geometries, and desire to fill > fabs, Intel will do more SOCs. I was SOC design manager in Intel :-) > We like to spare the customers like red hat, Cisco, and ATT the pain of > supporting multiple APIs and code bases. That's our goal too, so it's good to hear that we're in agreement on this. > So we need have a forum/place where this can be worked at . If you have some ideas, then the best way to get some discussion going is t= hrough the mailing list. You could post a set of patches for proposed chang= es, a higher-level RFC outlining your thoughts, or just specific questions/= issues that you see. On the TSC that was specifically referenced earlier in this thread, there i= s a proposal for what we're now calling the Architecture Board at: http://d= pdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026598.html. As Dave mentioned, we agr= eed at our recent Userspace event in Dublin that membership of the board sh= ould be based on contributions and technical standing in the community. The= board will review and approve new members on an annual basis. =20 > We are reaching out and we like to feel welcome and some love :-) As Thomas already said, new contributors are always welcome! Tim >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 11:55 AM > To: Bagh Fares-B25033 ; CHIOSI, MARGARET T > ; Stephen Hemminger > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail > (pkathail@cisco.com) > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at > DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) >=20 > Hi, >=20 > On the contrary! I am aware that Freescale has been engaged for some > time in DPDK. I was responding to Margaret's contention that future > contributors (and she called out ARM and SOC vendors) should have a > voice. >=20 > I hope that clarifies my position and meaning. >=20 > Thanks, > Dave. >=20 > On 11/02/2015 12:44 PM, Bagh Fares wrote: > > As SOC vendor we will contribute heavily to the project. Example > crypto acceleration. We already contribute a lot to the linux community. > > So not sure why the doubt about of contribution? > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com] > > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 11:31 AM > > To: CHIOSI, MARGARET T ; Stephen Hemminger > > ; Bagh Fares-B25033 > > > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail > > (pkathail@cisco.com) > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at > > DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) > > > > Hi Margaret, > > > > On 11/02/2015 12:28 PM, CHIOSI, MARGARET T wrote: > >> I think it is very important for the first version of governance that > we have ARM/SOC vendor/future contributors to be part of TSC. > >> If based on historical contribution - they will be at a disadvantage. > >> We need to have the DPDK organization support an API which supports a > broader set of chips. > > > > I think there is definitely a role for SOC vendors in the project > governance, but the TSC should be representative of the technical > contributors to the project, rather than an aspirational body aiming to > get more people involved. > > > > I think there is an opportunity for future contributors/users to form > a powerful constituency in the project, but the TSC is not the right > place for that to happen IMHO. > > > > Thanks, > > Dave. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org] > >> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 12:22 PM > >> To: Bagh Fares > >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; dneary@redhat.com; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep > >> Kathail (pkathail@cisco.com); CHIOSI, MARGARET T > >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at > >> DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) > >> > >> There were two outcomes. > >> > >> One was a proposal to move governance under Linux Foundation. > >> > >> The other was to have a technical steering committee. > >> It was agreed the TSC would be based on the contributors to the > >> project, although we didn't come to a conclusion on a voting model. > >> > >> > >> I would propose that TSC should be elected at regular user summit > >> from nominees; in a manner similar to LF Technical Advisory Board. > >> > > > > -- > > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red > > Hat - http://community.redhat.com > > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 > > >=20 > -- > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy > Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338