From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169462A1A for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 22:45:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2015 13:45:00 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.17,604,1437462000"; d="scan'208";a="779292696" Received: from irsmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.99]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 Sep 2015 13:44:59 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.216]) by IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.10.252]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 28 Sep 2015 21:44:58 +0100 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: "St Leger, Jim" , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] DPDK.org Community Call - Sept 24 - Discuss Growth, Improvements Thread-Index: AdD1BSgUQlg4wPwkSBi5vigNnGTDpwFJ4Nug Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 20:44:58 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6742239A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <00B2C372B6E6DA4FB04934511BF0564A3E94B1A7@FMSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <00B2C372B6E6DA4FB04934511BF0564A3E94B1A7@FMSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.181] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK.org Community Call - Sept 24 - Discuss Growth, Improvements X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 20:45:17 -0000 Thanks to everybody who attended and provided input at last week's meeting.= It was a good, open discussion, and hopefully is the first step towards st= ructuring the DPDK project to facilitate its continued growth. I've included a summary of the discussion below. Please feel free to provid= e any additional input, or to clarify/correct if I've misrepresented anythi= ng below. The key follow up action is to continue this discussion at the Userspace ev= ent in Dublin next week. We have a discussion topic on this on the Thursday= afternoon (see https://dpdksummit.com/us/en/userspace2015). Following the = Userspace event we'll determine what additional calls and/or mailing list d= iscussions are required. Attendees: Alejandro Lucero (Netronome), Andrew Harvey (Cisco), Andrey Chil= ikin (Intel), Aws Ismail (Ciena), Bernard Iremonger (Intel), Bill Fischofer= (Linaro), Bruce Richardson (Intel), Damjan Marion (Cisco), Daniel Mrzyglod= (Intel), Dave Barach (Cisco), Dave Hunt (Intel), Dave Neary (Red Hat), Dec= lan Doherty (Intel), Ed Warnicke (Cisco), Fan Zhang (Intel), Gary Mussar (C= iena), Harry van Haaren (Intel), Jasvinder Singh (Intel), Jianfeng Tan (Int= el), Jim St Leger (Intel), John Bromhead (Cavium), John McNamara (Intel), K= eith Wiles (Intel), Margaret Chiosi (AT&T), Mike Glynn (Intel), Mike Holmes= (Linaro), Pablo de Lara Guarch (Intel), Pradeep Kathail (Cisco), Prasanth = Kannan (), Reshma Pattah (Intel), Roger Melton (Cisco), Santosh Shukla (Li= naro), Sergio Gonzalez Monroy (Intel), Siobhan Butler (Intel), Thomas Herbe= rt (Red Hat), Thomas Monjalon (6WIND), Tim O'Driscoll (Intel), Venky Venkat= esan (Intel) Note that this info was pulled from the GoToMeeting tool, but people joined= and left at different times during the call so it may not be a complete li= st. Purpose:=20 1. Structure for growth: Do we have the community practices, policies, and = procedures in place to allow us to continue to grow on our current trajecto= ry? =20 2. Gaps Limiting Participation: What gaps do companies who would like to pa= rticipate/contribute to DPDK.org see? What changes would they like to see m= ade to improve the project? Minutes: The main topics that were discussed were: Is the project structured correctly to manage continued growth? - We've seen a steady increase in total contributions and number of contrib= utors from one release to the next. - Some participants felt that decisions seem to be arbitrary and come down = to a couple of people being vocal on the mailing list. We need to determine= a better decision making process. - Some participants felt that DPDK needs to pay more attention to its consu= mers and are not sure that the current structure encourages this. Several companies have ARM ports and other enhancements to DPDK that have n= ot been upstreamed. What's preventing this from happening? - There are concerns that DPDK is currently very focused on x86 and PCI-bas= ed devices, and would not be receptive to an ARM port. How do we get a more= balanced approach? The technical issues can be fixed, but it's not clear w= hether the SoC vendors believe the project structure/governance is sufficie= nt to accept these kinds of changes. Several people have heard these concer= ns expressed in private, but they have not be aired in public. - A concern was expressed that we haven't heard sufficient input from Linar= o/ARM vendors on this. How do we get more input from them? Should the project be governed by a single company? - There were several acknowledgements of the contribution that Thomas Monja= lon has made to the project, including the fact that he completed the 2.1 r= elease while on vacation. There was a concern though that this dependency o= n a single key individual doesn't scale as the project continues to grow. - Some participants stated that they would have more confidence in the proj= ect if it wasn't run by a single company. Having a broader governance struc= ture would help the project scale and make sure it's independent of any sin= gle company's business interests. This is largely a perception issue and no= patches have been rejected so far because they conflict with the business = interests of community members. A concern was expressed that the resistance= seen to upstreaming an IPsec sample application may fall into this categor= y in future. - Discussed the creation of a Technical Steering Committee, which was propo= sed previously on the mailing list. Some expressed the view that this shoul= d be composed of contributors to the project, others that it should be more= balanced between contributors and consumers. Convergence between DPDK and ODP came up a few times. Agreed that the focus= of this discussion was on governance and that convergence needs to be deal= t with separately. Next steps: - For those attending the Userspace event in Dublin, we have a discussion t= opic on this on the Thursday afternoon (see https://dpdksummit.com/us/en/us= erspace2015). Those who are interested in continuing this discussion should= attend that session. - Following the Userspace event we'll determine what additional calls and/o= r mailing list discussions are required. Thanks, Tim > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of St Leger, Jim > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:15 AM > To: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: [dpdk-dev] DPDK.org Community Call - Sept 24 - Discuss Growth, > Improvements >=20 > I am going to host a community call on Thursday Sept 24 at 7:00am > Pacific daylight time. The conference call dial-in info via GoToMeeting > is pasted below. Here is the background and objective of the > discussion. >=20 > The DPDK community continues to grow. Here are some stats on the 2.1 > release from August 17th: > =3D> 827 commits. A growth of ~50% over the 2.0 release. > =3D> 82 individual committers. A growth of ~33% over the 2.0 release. > The number of companies contributing has also continued to grow. >=20 > There is a strong desire to continue to grow and solidify the community. > But the growth brings up the question of how the community is structured > to scale. Additionally, there are many private DPDK repositories > across the industry (e.g. ARM ports, for example.) There are a myriad > of reasons why companies have elected to keep their DPDK code and ports > private versus put them into the DPDK.org community. We as a community > need to understand and explore these reasons and work towards enabling > inclusion. >=20 > During this gathering I'd like to bring together the DPDK community > including: > a) the DPDK code contributors, > b) the consumers of DPDK downstream (VNF vendors, etc.), > c) private branch DPDK creators/consumers, and > d) anyone else interested in the growth and future of the DPDK open > source software project. >=20 > The call will focus on two topics: >=20 > 1) Structure for growth: >=20 > Do we have the community practices, policies, and procedures in place to > allow us to continue to grow on our current trajectory? >=20 >=20 >=20 > 2) Gaps Limiting Participation: >=20 > What gaps do companies who would like to participate/contribute to > DPDK.org see? >=20 > What changes would they like to see made to improve the project? >=20 > I hope people can attend AND that they will join and speak up and be > heard. The success and growth of the community depends on YOU! >=20 > Thanks, > Jim > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > DPDK Community Call >=20 > Thu, Sep 24, 2015 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM GMT Daylight Time > Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. > https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/766709085 >=20 > You can also dial in using your phone. >=20 > Access Code: 766-709-085 > Dial-in phone numbers > United States : +1 (312) 757-3117 > Australia : +61 2 8355 1031 > Austria : +43 (0) 7 2088 1033 > Belgium : +32 (0) 28 93 7001 > Canada : +1 (647) 497-9371 > Denmark : +45 (0) 69 91 89 33 > Finland : +358 (0) 942 41 5770 > France : +33 (0) 170 950 585 > Germany : +49 (0) 692 5736 7303 > Ireland : +353 (0) 19 030 050 > Italy : +39 0 693 38 75 50 > Netherlands : +31 (0) 208 080 208 > New Zealand : +64 9 925 0481 > Norway : +47 21 54 82 21 > Spain : +34 911 82 9890 > Sweden : +46 (0) 853 527 817 > Switzerland : +41 (0) 435 0167 65 > United Kingdom : +44 (0) 20 3713 5010 >=20