From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com
 [209.85.220.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E6E8E7D
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  4 Nov 2015 00:35:19 +0100 (CET)
Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so32672629pas.2
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:35:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=networkplumber_org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
 h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references
 :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=lJezNUeXeynZ/hMS77bbN0DV3WPMLSmli21xefh22mE=;
 b=1ZJfb4Pa1GusA+BkN6AAvDKSlLamYlJYUtIMWvAiM+rKI4S7rsQe1AcG9UpBJ6uyRl
 jc8flWMtQh5Tz1sUiwaO0LiqBhz4aBkn/Waamb+owg7VCx+DlxbD53Nda8rLIRJLZJNr
 j+MxCHkupq+zHY4/XFoluq84sjPtBzojRGJ4kfpbOeIZ1uNwRht0hiE//+kxlduA5QY3
 cK8soG+apGT0qv1j5fhxzZHgk2nBwIbdQEe2Jjx+Ze7Soc+oXqdJIoCiDpVfIEynd6Kh
 oTiMna/4q4BsRg1zJWoIpVUtllNgiYvd/RrqM5K74r+JY/W3IF99HtL/4ve25fjk3D4V
 iA8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
 h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to
 :references:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
 bh=lJezNUeXeynZ/hMS77bbN0DV3WPMLSmli21xefh22mE=;
 b=TlbW2qFSsQCCTuvRba4hG/NURLV1qvPUzRLRaQSyBNkfSKPNXpi+6jCN2WKCaOZKof
 WfuekpPoZ2cJ5ySerg/NpBpqtEIN/5tvOiP/CNGHNTB6q3OH78Z8fYUPnebq64TmaEiX
 vyRRuQgv5gcR3QcIfKQ0vqq/Hh6JQ03Iv8IsKToUiwmfj9xgIsF4l+PYR+9vmj8J0bFf
 DqLgWosxZ3eQJu0WDoyeeL1M9rM5GDbMINvKlPlWD7UaYCM3qcdc9NYdpH8R6j6q2RkG
 7g1Zbrc6cW1i195rt0lgGu8XSYtxMiMnlBVe69BDlAbzMaAedO5x4AvqFZk0BjyxTXqb
 3bOg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkaSDZzkfod7rsU1otqBvsOSVRyLe2Lefd3kCHVNlZAAzkY0bzns079CkrpaD1wciItWR56
X-Received: by 10.68.249.164 with SMTP id yv4mr32516837pbc.51.1446593718530;
 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:35:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xeon-e3 (static-50-53-82-155.bvtn.or.frontiernet.net.
 [50.53.82.155])
 by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id es4sm31483661pbc.42.2015.11.03.15.35.18
 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
 Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:35:18 -0800 (PST)
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:35:30 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
To: Pradeep Kathail <pkathail@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20151103153530.296cc8f6@xeon-e3>
In-Reply-To: <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com>
References: <BLUPR0301MB16517A68D5DB10053F353753982F0@BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <20151102092153.3b005229@xeon-e3>
 <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE478A@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com>
 <56379DE1.9020705@redhat.com>
 <BLUPR0301MB1651C776A4520A49F9659499982C0@BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <5637A387.3060507@redhat.com>
 <BLUPR0301MB1651FB584EAF082BFB3739C4982C0@BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744CA22@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "CHIOSI,
 MARGARET T" <mc3124@att.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <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 <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, 03 Nov 2015 23:35:19 -0000

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:16:16 -0800
Pradeep Kathail <pkathail@cisco.com> wrote:

> Tim and Dave,
> 
> I agree that an architecture board membership should be based on 
> technical standing and contribution but at the same time,
> if you are trying to bring a new hardware paradigm into a project, you 
> 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 
> to allow few (2?) members from SOC community for
> limited time (6? months) and then evaluate based on their contributions.
> 
> Pradeep

Why doesn't one or more SOC vendors contribute patches or discuss
the issues on the mailing list or at DPDK meetings. I dont think we
need a behind closed doors planning session on this. Much prefer
the old "consensus and running code model".