From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00191d01.pphosted.com [67.231.157.136]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 361808DAA for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 16:17:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from pps.filterd (m0049458.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with SMTP id tA3FEOVY011459; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:17:24 -0500 Received: from alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (sbcsmtp7.sbc.com [144.160.229.24]) by m0049458.ppops.net-00191d01. with ESMTP id 1xww657827-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 03 Nov 2015 10:17:24 -0500 Received: from enaf.aldc.att.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA3FHNtQ030399; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:17:24 -0500 Received: from mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com [130.9.128.239]) by alpi155.enaf.aldc.att.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA3FHHFM030217 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:17:20 -0500 Received: from MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com (MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.itservices.sbc.com [130.9.129.150]) by mlpi407.sfdc.sbc.com (RSA Interceptor); Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:17:04 GMT Received: from MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com ([169.254.4.198]) by MISOUT7MSGHUBAF.ITServices.sbc.com ([130.9.129.150]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:17:03 -0500 From: "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" To: Pradeep Kathail , "O'Driscoll, Tim" , Bagh Fares , Dave Neary , Stephen Hemminger Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) Thread-Index: AQHRFZL1HTzIf1c0W0WLMklUaOntD56I/AwAgABVKoCAAAOhgIAAAxqAgAACBwCAAD4cAIAAGYkAgAC4h7A= Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:17:03 +0000 Message-ID: <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE5A71@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com> References: <20151102092153.3b005229@xeon-e3> <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE478A@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com> <56379DE1.9020705@redhat.com> <5637A387.3060507@redhat.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744CA22@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.70.49.167] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-RSA-Inspected: yes X-RSA-Classifications: public X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2015-11-03_08:, , signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_policy_notspam policy=outbound_policy score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1507310000 definitions=main-1511030262 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" 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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:17:26 -0000 I second Pradeep's comments - which was what I was driving at. -----Original Message----- From: Pradeep Kathail [mailto:pkathail@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 6:16 PM To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Bagh Fares; Dave Neary; CHIOSI, MARGARET T; Stephen He= mminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK U= serspace (was Notes from ...) Tim and Dave, I agree that an architecture board membership should be based on=20 technical standing and contribution but at the same time, if you are trying to bring a new hardware paradigm into a project, you=20 need to give a chance to some of those experts to participate and gain the standing. If community is serious about supporting SOC's, my suggestion will be=20 to allow few (2?) members from SOC community for limited time (6? months) and then evaluate based on their contributions. Pradeep On 11/2/15 1:44 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bagh Fares >> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 6:03 PM >> To: Dave Neary; CHIOSI, MARGARET T; Stephen Hemminger >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pradeep Kathail (pkathail@cisco.com) >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at >> DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) >> >> Yes. Thank you. What we like is to get to a point where we discuss API >> and align on APIs for SOC as Margaret mention. As you know Arm has been >> driving ODP as the API for SOC. >> What we like to do is to drive the APIs under DPDK even for Arm SOC. >> Long term, and based on shrinking silicon geometries, and desire to fill >> fabs, Intel will do more SOCs. I was SOC design manager in Intel :-) >> We like to spare the customers like red hat, Cisco, and ATT the pain of >> supporting multiple APIs and code bases. > That's our goal too, so it's good to hear that we're in agreement on this= . > >> So we need have a forum/place where this can be worked at . > If you have some ideas, then the best way to get some discussion going is= through the mailing list. You could post a set of patches for proposed cha= nges, a higher-level RFC outlining your thoughts, or just specific question= s/issues that you see. > > On the TSC that was specifically referenced earlier in this thread, there= is a proposal for what we're now calling the Architecture Board at: http:/= /dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026598.html. As Dave mentioned, we a= greed at our recent Userspace event in Dublin that membership of the board = should be based on contributions and technical standing in the community. T= he board will review and approve new members on an annual basis. > =20 >> We are reaching out and we like to feel welcome and some love :-) > As Thomas already said, new contributors are always welcome! > > > Tim > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com] >> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 11:55 AM >> To: Bagh Fares-B25033 ; CHIOSI, MARGARET T >> ; Stephen Hemminger >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail >> (pkathail@cisco.com) >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at >> DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) >> >> Hi, >> >> On the contrary! I am aware that Freescale has been engaged for some >> time in DPDK. I was responding to Margaret's contention that future >> contributors (and she called out ARM and SOC vendors) should have a >> voice. >> >> I hope that clarifies my position and meaning. >> >> Thanks, >> Dave. >> >> On 11/02/2015 12:44 PM, Bagh Fares wrote: >>> As SOC vendor we will contribute heavily to the project. Example >> crypto acceleration. We already contribute a lot to the linux community. >>> So not sure why the doubt about of contribution? >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com] >>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 11:31 AM >>> To: CHIOSI, MARGARET T ; Stephen Hemminger >>> ; Bagh Fares-B25033 >>> >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail >>> (pkathail@cisco.com) >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at >>> DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) >>> >>> 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 >>> >> -- >> 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 > . >