From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748018E91 for ; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:23:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2015 06:23:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,218,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="823139724" Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Oct 2015 06:23:53 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.138]) by IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.116]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:23:52 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Dave Neary , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Architecture Board Proposal Thread-Index: AdESXXFZp4hchkInQi2ciOcDI//rHAAJWayAAB9PXNAABRZWgAAAVPxw Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:23:52 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA67449C7B@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA674488A2@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <56327827.1030306@redhat.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA674499B6@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <56336C69.5000405@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <56336C69.5000405@redhat.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] Architecture Board Proposal 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: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:23:55 -0000 > -----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 >=20 > Hi, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 >=20 > 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. >=20 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.or= g. - 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, th= e Architecture Board will decide. Is that in line with your thoughts on this? Tim