Re: [dpdk-dev] Architecture Board Proposal

["O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:11 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Architecture Board Proposal
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 10/30/2015 07:01 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> >>> Scope
> >>> -----
> >>> Issues that are within the scope of the Architecture Board include:
> >>> - Project scope/charter. What is and isn't within the scope of the
> >>>   project? What happens if somebody wants to upstream a new
> >>>   library/capability and it's not clear whether it fits within DPDK
> or
> >>>   not? As a random example, if somebody wanted to upstream a DPDK-
> >> enabled
> >>>   TCP/IP stack to dpdk.org, should that be accepted or rejected?
> >>
> >> I agree with Thomas here that this seems like it would be a separate
> >> project under dpdk.org, rather than part of DPDK - I think it's OK
> for
> >> the Architecture Board to own the scope of "projects on dpdk.org"
> rather
> >> than just DPDK.
> >
> > I think there are two questions here. The first is one that Thomas
> raised and you've also touched on: Is the scope of the Architecture
> Board just DPDK (i.e. everything in http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/), or is
> it everything hosted on dpdk.org (list at: http://dpdk.org/browse/). My
> original intent was just DPDK, but I'm fine with either option.
> >
> > The second question is who decides whether something is within the
> scope of DPDK or not? A TCP/IP stack was just an example. If I were to
> submit patches for a DPDK-accelerated IPsec library (librte_ipsec), who
> would decide whether that's OK or if it needs to reside somewhere else
> outside of the DPDK? I think that managing the scope of the project
> should be one of the roles of the Architecture Board.
> 
> The issue I see is that if we agree that the architecture board's scope
> is limited to DPDK only, and the architecture board owns the scope of
> DPDK, that we still have the open question of which projects are
> appropriate to be housed under dpdk.org
> 
> There was a general agreement in Dublin that DPDK related projects and
> applications could live in dpdk.org, but we didn't really touch on the
> process or requirements for adding new projects. I think it's
> appropriate for the architecture board to own those too.
> 

That makes sense. So maybe what we're converging on is the following:
- The scope of the Architecture Board covers all projects hosted on dpdk.org.
- The Architecture Board will approve new projects to be hosted on dpdk.org.
- If it's not clear whether a new piece of functionality resides within one of the existing projects on dpdk.org or needs a new project of its own, the Architecture Board will decide.

Is that in line with your thoughts on this?


Tim