Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] decision process and DPDK scope

["Wiles, Keith" <keith.wiles@intel.com>]

> On Feb 13, 2017, at 9:21 AM, Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger
>> Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 10:49 PM
>> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
>> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>; dev@dpdk.org;
>> techboard@dpdk.org
>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] decision process and DPDK scope
>> 
>> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:20:47 +0000
>> Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> I think we can use this case to avoid seeing it again in the future.
>>>> I suggest that the technical board should check whether every new
>>>> proposed features are explained, discussed and approved enough in the
>> community.
>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The bigger question here is the default position of the DPDK community
>>> - default accept, or default reject. Your statements above all are
>>> very much keeping in the style of default reject i.e. every patch or
>>> change suggested is assumed to be unfit for acceptance unless reviewed
>>> in detail to prove beyond doubt otherwise.
>>> 
>>> I believe that we should change this default position, as I think that
>>> reject by default is hurting the community and will continue to do so.
>>> 
>>> NOTE: I am not suggesting that we allow all code in with zero review,
>>> but I am suggesting that if something has been reviewed and acked by
>>> at least one reviewer it should be autom
>> 
>> I agree but in a more assertive manner. The maintainer should be the
>> default and active reviewer of all submissions. Like other projects the
>> maintainers job is to review and accept (or provide constructive
>> feedback). Otherwise the job could just by done by some manager.
>> 
>> But recently, I have changed my mind. The current DPDK project model is
>> not scaling well. After hearing some of the arguments in favor of a
>> multiple committer model (see "Maintainers Don't Scale" ) https://kernel-
>> recipes.org/en/2016/talks/maintainers-dont-scale/
>> 
>> And comments on lwn:
>> https://lwn.net/Articles/703005/
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> That is an interesting case study. Perhaps it is something we could trial in 17.05 on one or more of the sub-trees.

+1 What sub-trees would be the best place to start and then who would be best suited to the role?

I was thinking net-next would be a good place to start.

> 
> John
> 
> 

Regards,
Keith