From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <stephen@networkplumber.org> Received: from mail-pg0-f41.google.com (mail-pg0-f41.google.com [74.125.83.41]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC4110A7 for <moving@dpdk.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:11:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-pg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id p66so10928414pga.2 for <moving@dpdk.org>; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:11:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=networkplumber-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LmUoVhAQoW5+H6qHZmLVd6SNlVNvVyi6FYumv8VDWFo=; b=0D3aMOcdRaiNYB1+c9ONV516SyNcAVyt1Ov2qKqHOo5/rX5v25W7UmXoQl+BDGBVe5 d6uR0CSgRg/tfay8P5aSyDqC1QkRokLNmnIAZktsncaHTlvtg7XGGbsxLSEE/vafBRwj Lw73WHRJk64e5xHk5UsxY1ChDLjj6fu5GWIjCE08Hi+MJ+ECGrSWGLRjGey91bDI4jPE bGk07gGIGZGdvHU5t3AKAwYfvJiAXa/gp1zB77qeIYvA9RzuuvSsu/DS2v+Fc6Ecd5D7 2/PBbZZuBOl4Ophdmq7w4SaFk1KPNuHrYWSKCdoZpKNQyu4IhJBf5zZISUDWoNp7X2w0 i4Gg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LmUoVhAQoW5+H6qHZmLVd6SNlVNvVyi6FYumv8VDWFo=; b=XBga4ImwAotxAII0+XqyWfDEV5bfT/txyxmKfGnP8SZcQviGlOpZvkODNPeJgRnnhA RIOvvJ4ud50zg7Z1IUXOKvQTYh04oXQFLxMF29OIC6nHKuQ2o12+4eYvhgv+Fi+ol1zG XlJGZDxEKxHTGzx5gNl/n7wzOXXDP8nj/NJiHUeTEuq7+Zad5f5PVn0VNjx7mq5LmBQf 8NFQ0Y6rPm9I6VYrp+1Efv3AlPNRGnG+B4Xy6psQpx9HmfNQOroQUlI+Ybw1xRvyROHB P/JJk9ozP30HenCRKq7qnSsM1/CiL/scfY1pa7nPpScRC+1EkQ2ZPy3zjIYYfbumHs0I Fjsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC02mbEvCocjdr/3LdjEDQR/zBtQEqRKdyZq4IV4sHaEqbLfentm4DtsC49H3zhHiKg== X-Received: by 10.99.141.193 with SMTP id z184mr190491448pgd.23.1481742690710; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:11:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from xeon-e3 (204-195-18-65.wavecable.com. [204.195.18.65]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a24sm89068579pfh.57.2016.12.14.11.11.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:11:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:11:23 -0800 From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com> Cc: "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org> Message-ID: <20161214111123.698789a9@xeon-e3> In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA72294E34@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA72294E34@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, December 13th X-BeenThere: moving@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK community structure changes <moving.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/moving>, <mailto:moving-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/> List-Post: <mailto:moving@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:moving-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/moving>, <mailto:moving-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:11:31 -0000 On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 17:45:49 +0000 "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com> wrote: > 6.Efficiency of the review process: > As part of the Tech Board discussions, the topic of patch reviews came up: > - The question of slow reviews came up specifically in relation to a patch set a few months ago from NXP. > - The key issue with reviews is that participating companies allocate time from their engineers to make contributions, but don't always allocate time for them to do reviews. The only way to fix this problem is for all participating companies to allocate more time to reviews. Thomas in particular has been highlighting this gap since the beginning of the open source project. > - Maintainer responsibilities are being documented by John McNamara in the Contributor's Guidelines. Details are in this thread: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-December/051201.html. Those with ideas for improvement should contribute to that thread on the mailing list. Some projects like BSD and Linux take an active maintainer model. The maintainer is repsonsible for doing reviews and will accept changes after a few days by doing review on their own. In these projects if no objections are received, it is up the maintainer to review and comment/accept. Other projects like Openstack and DPDK use a passive maintainer model. Patches are expected to be reviewed by the mailing list and acked before accepted. There seems to be some confusion (and dissent) on which model is being used and why.