From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72C5C350
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 19 May 2015 17:34:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org
 ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost)
 by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63)
 (envelope-from <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>)
 id 1YujXP-000733-U6; Tue, 19 May 2015 11:34:40 -0400
Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 11:34:34 -0400
From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Message-ID: <20150519153434.GA29078@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D43080@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <CAOaVG14qnJ40rhoo4B4FoB0MVoLa=6NSta7gEabWATSCT0-nKQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOaVG14qnJ40rhoo4B4FoB0MVoLa=6NSta7gEabWATSCT0-nKQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--)
X-Spam-Status: No
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Technical Steering Committee (TSC)
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 15:34:46 -0000

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:43:14AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Composition of the TSC should reflect contributions to the project, but be
> > balanced so that no single party has an undue influence. It should also be
> > kept to a manageable size(maybe 7?).
> >
> > The TSC should elect its own chair, who would have the deciding vote in
> > the event that the TSC was deadlocked. Once in place, the TSC should
> > approve any new members.
> >
> > Specific details on membership can be discussed and agreed later, if we
> > agree on the creation of a TSC.
> >
> 
> TSC should be limited to those individuals and companies that have
> contributed in a non-trivial way to the DPDK distributed code base.
> It should not be a users group, or place for network vendors who take but
> never give back.
> 
+1

It should also endavour to only act as a fallback body for any issues commonly
handled by the development communtiy (patch acceptance/review, etc)
Neil