DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Pradeep Kathail <pkathail@cisco.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" <mc3124@att.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...)
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 14:03:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2028836.pAx3E9MnhN@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744D202@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>

2015-11-03 12:43, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: Pradeep Kathail [mailto:pkathail@cisco.com]
> > 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.
> 
> I think we might be talking about 2 slightly different things. You're asking how new contributors can participate and gain technical credibility. Anybody can do that via the dev@dpdk.org mailing list. I'm sure patches, RFCs or discussions on changes required in DPDK to better facilitate SoCs will be welcomed. There have been some good examples of this over the last few days on ARMv7/v8 support and a NEON-based ACL implementation.
> 
> The Architecture Board isn't intended as a forum for design discussions, which I think might be what you're looking for. It's intended to meet only occasionally to cover the items outlined in the proposal. We discussed composition of the board recently in Dublin and the community decided that, while users and potential contributors have an important role to play in the project, it should be composed solely of contributors. Dave Neary summed it up well in a previous email on this: "The TSC should be representative of the technical contributors to the project, rather than an aspirational body aiming to get more people involved."
> 
> It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of others on whether we should consider an exception in this case.

The Architecture Board would be useful only in case a consensus cannot be reached.
It has not happened yet.
We are a truly open community so you just have to contribute to make things happen.

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-03 13:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-30 18:01 Bagh Fares
2015-11-02 16:04 ` CHIOSI, MARGARET T
2015-11-02 17:21 ` Stephen Hemminger
2015-11-02 17:28   ` CHIOSI, MARGARET T
2015-11-02 17:31     ` Dave Neary
2015-11-02 17:44       ` Bagh Fares
2015-11-02 17:55         ` Dave Neary
2015-11-02 18:02           ` Bagh Fares
2015-11-02 21:44             ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2015-11-02 23:16               ` Pradeep Kathail
2015-11-03 12:43                 ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2015-11-03 13:03                   ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2015-11-03 22:05                   ` Bagh Fares
2015-11-03 22:47                     ` Vincent JARDIN
2015-11-03 15:17                 ` CHIOSI, MARGARET T
2015-11-03 23:35                 ` Stephen Hemminger
2015-11-04 17:02                   ` Pradeep Kathail
2015-11-02 18:01         ` Thomas Monjalon
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-10-11  0:36 [dpdk-dev] Notes from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace Dave Neary
2015-10-12 16:45 ` [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) Dave Neary

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=2028836.pAx3E9MnhN@xps13 \
    --to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=mc3124@att.com \
    --cc=pkathail@cisco.com \
    /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).