From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr0-f178.google.com (mail-wr0-f178.google.com [209.85.128.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633A3F95B for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:23:43 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr0-f178.google.com with SMTP id k90so83496538wrc.3 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 05:23:43 -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:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ALaH39zhsMIF04BkVTjZy/tCrPEQgsi1Yhw9x1Allpo=; b=R1fKxTM0e/ZhGLkkDA6ntknyST8T7PWaqqFtH5TxooplXdmdfTviMvBnvBrtBQpc9Y n3SmyIu+8bbjCRCU4KlZGSjgNTka1E9EPiiAYx98hHy1DZd/jIWXu5vxF4bmPnVHKdP2 uI/4wyfmwBgHKefj/+z2bmWUkpUpao7GVjhZfEya0xT57eTLFixZOq2sWG+HUaH1cpeO xEa23rwyiaEsSMvqznAQR6GXZbbsMAdqQTB6t/45AIRo7cDfZtObudajSw7G1debZO1e HwTQijWqkld3PL8qJ3iWD/5xJt3ztzocXaKrm5VFK7gjf9CfmtAQ1bmuSfofPhSHtQep FPyQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ALaH39zhsMIF04BkVTjZy/tCrPEQgsi1Yhw9x1Allpo=; b=LkOARnaahspbluGlT6l0Eu6+AAAITN/tYq5d71gvXFRu8kadX72vpGJ96SgX/opKQR J4CDh7rRUSCqAMMuW9Bc0n7glI9/EUU0b4iIFVA/mYgKA1Ueb+lqGvnqNwN88UBd4n5/ vZn6V2cC8V3D81ujpQSV1FhYGWJEDgHiINfGtAQ4zjgY5dNcGwngD1ipX2dIb2lOGbxL QGgo+LIvkMQw94dRtpRMGSLERTzRTJR2VIyghcgGA1c68ZUtMFr5BsIACKBA6nnibBBb LLriERO07aCkv9HQMYKwlPI+ZUEH28+dvtKjsxpazzorbw1uQwKeEF7B9PGqPxGnOX7V 0XRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mQU8eTrp2jfvRb0kXLgHWCSuFFI8clCV+00HkxkAZJegJfXDTz2fhSAdp6NXsle8Bc X-Received: by 10.223.149.103 with SMTP id 94mr2852552wrs.110.1486646623716; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 05:23:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w99sm18582028wrb.5.2017.02.09.05.23.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 05:23:43 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Cc: dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:23:42 +0100 Message-ID: <5235900.UHrQLgMuJO@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722B9CB4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1667864.GflPPoyiWF@xps13> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722B9CB4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] decision process and DPDK scope X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 13:23:44 -0000 2017-02-09 11:54, O'Driscoll, Tim: > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon > > I suggest that the technical board should check whether every new > > proposed features are explained, discussed and approved enough in > > the community. > > I assume you don't mean every new feature, just those that involve > major changes (new libraries, new/modified APIs etc.). Is that correct? Yes, it is not about drivers. It is more about API. > > If needed, the technical board meeting minutes will give some lights to > > the threads which require more attention. > > Before adding a new library or adding a major API, there should be > > some strong reviews which include discussing the DPDK scope. > > > > Openness of a large community is proven by its active feedbacks. > > +1 > > At the moment, when there's no feedback on an RFC or patch set, there's no way of knowing whether that means people are happy with it or that nobody has reviewed it. Using the Tech Board to highlight RFCs/patch sets that require more review is a good idea. Yes it is my thought: we should have several explicit agreements for important patches.