From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f47.google.com (mail-wm0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 891F4F947 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:11:41 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f47.google.com with SMTP id v186so77191862wmd.0 for ; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 03:11:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9l5ZL1T8Xp7J4Mus7wjcqtOYxJwhUoUJJbJQZUy/vrI=; b=Zja/SYEj8tIXu4lizVSgIaUTVEeonqPk+dLdZiLxhyN2+mzBIV/n45d2fJGJeaHaWN BPjPl1maCv1K7Zu8J9R71GHBcUj7cIecgi+ZSszhYDxoVpVXoikRmszbfK3YhdRT3V4p OwP360iRIa0hjCIKZVwVWAmnxsu2uGQ9jcvog2WTHXIqbb14ywp/to9VIsP0UcxE7MDk mZ9SmHmpBiGE35WikCH5A2S6qdHLM2CiUCKn33mG9GFiIvHAE5v0d3VYfXY1TQKN3FNO TlcaJkFxwVqrfKiuaHScQTNixsiQXlmijv0Lnt4KIiwXykGDs1EFjzj9Ph/Z6q4/2ki6 FeyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=9l5ZL1T8Xp7J4Mus7wjcqtOYxJwhUoUJJbJQZUy/vrI=; b=Rw+nVtNUmk4yQbSZEx/iF65UcBYO8TPjFvNE79o1t0rZARB4B4j+pe6SOEeXhWNj6w Do+k+FTp33qmxdv19tHcqpzDr5dV/OK99RAZBOpQmFc28DXgvn1QRJxulN++Pt1ssKRu dH2PYgQ+AHrRQGVB8csVzlRTAv4jhMkzwk2VvIVwB+cEkcZw7SCBJPoV4IrS3IrleGf0 WoCPjV92a1XwewY/oldl3nOHFSS5tAFZuUPbIxQRZPJVQVXZKrH3TfMdzsPxbx/0/vTw B1meEzoCmlLcFlZc1sNyH1g1d6Q2Yhzfv6ccG6X5GNiYsWvM9vJkTbIC/Nf5YoDvbvjZ KcRA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nUwjLNsPzOOxmKKa76P53v3+861O7txje0LLPoXIYMRPcMft2cIEuApec1Bn/Ia51X X-Received: by 10.28.221.7 with SMTP id u7mr20804687wmg.33.1486638701114; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 03:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e14sm8306620wmd.14.2017.02.09.03.11.40 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 09 Feb 2017 03:11:40 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: dev@dpdk.org Cc: techboard@dpdk.org Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 12:11:39 +0100 Message-ID: <1667864.GflPPoyiWF@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: [dpdk-dev] decision process and DPDK scope X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:11:41 -0000 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.