DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: dev@dpdk.org
Cc: techboard@dpdk.org
Subject: [dpdk-dev] decision process and DPDK scope
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:11:39 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1667864.GflPPoyiWF@xps13> (raw)

Hi all,

When DPDK was a small project, it was easy to propose a major change,
get feedback from the few contributors and figure a decision.
It had the drawback of the lack of various point of views.
So we probably made some quick and wrong decisions.

As the community is growing, we need to improve the decision process
to make sure the responsibilities are well shared and represent the
diversity of the community.

There has been a recent failure in this process. I would like to show
it as an example of things to better solve.
During last August, a patch was sent: "add bit-rate metrics to xstats".
After more thoughts, a v2 was sent in October: "expanded statistic reporting".
Starting from this version, the idea was to add completely new libraries.
Nobody (including me) asked why we should maintain these things in DPDK.
I have just realized that there was neither discussion on the need for these
libraries nor on the DPDK scope. I feel the DPDK scope (and API in general)
should be better owned by the community. So I took the decision to not
integrate these patches in 17.02 and I'm sorry about that.
It is a failure to not give good feedbacks on time.
It is a failure to not ask the right questions.
It is a failure to not have more attention on a new feature.
It is a failure to take such decision alone.

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.

Openness of a large community is proven by its active feedbacks.

             reply	other threads:[~2017-02-09 11:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-09 11:11 Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2017-02-09 11:54 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2017-02-09 13:23   ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-09 12:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] " Bruce Richardson
2017-02-09 22:49   ` Stephen Hemminger
2017-02-10 15:54     ` Bruce Richardson
2017-02-10 17:23       ` Thomas Monjalon
2017-02-13 10:34         ` Bruce Richardson
2017-02-13 15:21     ` Mcnamara, John
2017-02-13 15:58       ` Wiles, Keith

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1667864.GflPPoyiWF@xps13 \
    --to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).