From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3125A50 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:31:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78AC88F287; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 17:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-41-137.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-113-108.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.108]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tA2HVEQE014253 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:31:14 -0500 To: "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" , Stephen Hemminger , Bagh Fares References: <20151102092153.3b005229@xeon-e3> <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE478A@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com> From: Dave Neary Message-ID: <56379DE1.9020705@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 12:31:13 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE478A@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 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 17:31:16 -0000 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