From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CAD29D6 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:57:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2017 06:57:18 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,348,1477983600"; d="scan'208";a="41512511" Received: from irsmsx154.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.192.96]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Feb 2017 06:57:18 -0800 Received: from irsmsx111.ger.corp.intel.com (10.108.20.4) by IRSMSX154.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:57:17 +0000 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.173]) by irsmsx111.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.109]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:57:17 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "moving@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, February 7th Thread-Index: AdKCG4PT6kmD1R99RVeB0mBrlYqyfQ== Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:57:17 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722B93D1@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNWFiOWVmNTctOGZjOC00OTk3LTg4NmMtZDNjYTA2Y2VlNjk2IiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE2LjIuMTEuMCIsIlRydXN0ZWRMYWJlbEhhc2giOiJJdGVRUEhiY1I4ZjhWXC9WUTJ1RG41OVlKa2NJcUJcL0N0czNYd2FoUVwvU0xJPSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.182] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dpdk-moving] Minutes from "Moving DPDK to Linux Foundation" call, February 7th X-BeenThere: moving@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK community structure changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:57:20 -0000 Here are my notes from yesterday's call. Please feel free to correct any er= rors or to add additional details. Attendees: Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Erez Scop (Mellanox), George Zhao (Huawei),= Hemant Agrawal (NXP), Jan Blunck (Brocade), Jaswinder Singh (NXP), Jim St.= Leger (Intel), Keith Wiles (Intel), Kevin Traynor (Red Hat), Matt Spencer = (ARM), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Vincent Jardin (6WI= ND). Firstly, here are some links to help keep track of things: Project Charter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x43ycfW3arJNX-e6NQt3OV= zAuNXtD7dppIhrY48FoGs Budget estimate: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-3686Xb_jf4FtxdX8M= us9UwIxUb2vI_ppmJV5GnXcLg/edit#gid=3D302618256 Reference Lab Proposal: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-February/00= 0177.html Technical governance, including info on Maintainers and sub-trees: http://d= pdk.org/doc/guides/contributing/index.html & http://dpdk.org/dev. Summary of discussion at Userspace event in Dublin: http://dpdk.org/ml/arch= ives/dev/2016-October/049259.html Minutes of January 10th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-Janua= ry/000136.html Minutes of January 17th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-Janua= ry/000157.html Minutes of January 24th call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-Janua= ry/000162.html Minutes of January 31st call: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-Febru= ary/000176.html Public meetings of Tech Board and Governing Board: - At their last meeting the Tech Board proposed restricting meetings to jus= t Tech Board members. Mike Dolan raised a concern over this because every L= F project has open Tech Board meetings. The Tech Board will reconsider this= in their next meeting. - We discussed whether Governing Board meetings should be public as well. T= he reasons for not doing this have been discussed previously. GB issues tha= t can't be discussed in public include legal issues, confidential budget di= scussions, discussion on potential new project members that have not yet be= en made public etc. - Agreed that GB meetings will not be public. Vincent agreed to remove his = objections to this. The board will review this again in future to make sure= there's sufficient communication to the rest of the community. - Ed clarified that the GB should be able to invite others to attend for sp= ecific topics. I'll add this to the charter. - Kevin asked about communication to Silver members who are not represented= on the GB. We agreed that this would be at the discretion of the board whe= n it's formed. In practice, the expectation is that almost everything will = be in the public minutes anyway. Target launch date for the project: - We discussed whether we should pick a target date to launch the project, = so that we have a date to work towards. - We agreed to target a launch to coincide with ONS (http://events.linuxfou= ndation.org/events/open-networking-summit) which is from April 3-6. We can = change this if that turns out to be unrealistic. Reference lab proposal: - We discussed the reference lab proposal that I posted on the moving and c= i mailing lists on Friday (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/moving/2017-February= /000177.html). The key thing to agree on first is the purpose of the lab. L= ower-level details (required hardware etc.) can be agreed later once we're = clear on the purpose. - This is not an issue that gates the launch of the project. We can continu= e to work this after the launch if there's not agreement before then. - Ed highlighted https://docs.fd.io/csit/rls1701/report/ as an example of w= hat we may want to aspire to. - In previous discussions, there's been a strong desire to keep costs low. = So, we need to balance scope versus cost. The current proposal is an attemp= t to keep costs to a minimum while still establishing a lab that serves a u= seful purpose for the project. - Discussed the different hosting models: 1) open lab hosted in independent= data center; 2) publicly accessible labs hosted by individual vendors usin= g a similar model to the OPNFV Pharos project (https://wiki.opnfv.org/displ= ay/pharos/Pharos+Home); 3) a distributed setup similar to what exists for C= I where vendors do performance testing internally and then publish the resu= lts. The concern with options 2 and 3 is that they're difficult to manage a= nd that it's difficult to ensure consistency. - Discussed whether the lab should be used to host new (and therefore unsta= ble) hardware. The consensus was that the purpose is to identify performanc= e regressions so it should be limited to hardware that's stable and well-pr= oven, and the configuration should be kept very stable so that performance = results can be compared accurately with previous data. - Agreed that because of this the lab would not be useful for testing the l= atest NICs and the latest NIC-related features. It should be focused on per= formance regression testing of DPDK software changes. - We need to consider how the results are published. Is this done automatic= ally or do they need to be reviewed first? The target should be to have the= lab sufficiently stable for this to be done automatically, but we may need= to review at first in order to have confidence in the numbers. - We need to consider how to trigger tests in the lab (e.g. patchwork trigg= er for Jenkins). - We'll discuss again next week when more people have had time to review th= e draft proposal. Next Meeting: Tuesday February 14th at 3pm GMT, 4pm CET, 10am EST, 7am PST. Access number= s for the call are: Skype meeting: https://meet.intel.com/tim.odriscoll/97F0Q1HF France: +33 1588 77298 UK: +44 179340 2663 USA: +1 916 356 2663=09 Bridge Number: 5 Conference ID: 120705852