Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...)

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pradeep Kathail [mailto:pkathail@cisco.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 11:16 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim; Bagh Fares; Dave Neary; CHIOSI, MARGARET T; Stephen
> Hemminger
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at
> DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...)
> 
> 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.


Tim

> 
> Pradeep
> 
> On 11/2/15 1:44 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Bagh Fares
> >> Sent: Monday, November 2, 2015 6:03 PM
> >> To: Dave Neary; CHIOSI, MARGARET T; Stephen Hemminger
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Pradeep Kathail (pkathail@cisco.com)
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at
> >> DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...)
> >>
> >> Yes. Thank you. What we like is to get to a point where we discuss
> API
> >> and align on APIs for SOC as Margaret mention. As you know Arm has
> been
> >> driving ODP as the API for SOC.
> >> What we like to do is to drive the APIs under DPDK even for Arm SOC.
> >> Long term, and based on shrinking silicon geometries, and desire to
> fill
> >> fabs, Intel will do more SOCs. I was SOC design manager in Intel :-)
> >> We like to spare the customers like red hat, Cisco, and ATT the pain
> of
> >> supporting multiple APIs and code bases.
> > That's our goal too, so it's good to hear that we're in agreement on
> this.
> >
> >> So we need have a forum/place where this can be worked at .
> > If you have some ideas, then the best way to get some discussion going
> is through the mailing list. You could post a set of patches for
> proposed changes, a higher-level RFC outlining your thoughts, or just
> specific questions/issues that you see.
> >
> > On the TSC that was specifically referenced earlier in this thread,
> there is a proposal for what we're now calling the Architecture Board
> at: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026598.html. As Dave
> mentioned, we agreed at our recent Userspace event in Dublin that
> membership of the board should be based on contributions and technical
> standing in the community. The board will review and approve new members
> on an annual basis.
> >
> >> We are reaching out and we like to feel welcome and some love :-)
> > As Thomas already said, new contributors are always welcome!
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> >> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 11:55 AM
> >> To: Bagh Fares-B25033 <Fares.Bagh@freescale.com>; CHIOSI, MARGARET T
> >> <mc3124@att.com>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
> >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail
> >> (pkathail@cisco.com) <pkathail@cisco.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at
> >> DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...)
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On the contrary! I am aware that Freescale has been engaged for some
> >> time in DPDK. I was responding to Margaret's contention that future
> >> contributors (and she called out ARM and SOC vendors) should have a
> >> voice.
> >>
> >> I hope that clarifies my position and meaning.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Dave.
> >>
> >> On 11/02/2015 12:44 PM, Bagh Fares wrote:
> >>> As SOC vendor we will contribute heavily to the project. Example
> >> crypto acceleration. We already contribute a lot to the linux
> community.
> >>> So not sure why the doubt about of contribution?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> >>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 11:31 AM
> >>> To: CHIOSI, MARGARET T <mc3124@att.com>; Stephen Hemminger
> >>> <stephen@networkplumber.org>; Bagh Fares-B25033
> >>> <Fares.Bagh@freescale.com>
> >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail
> >>> (pkathail@cisco.com) <pkathail@cisco.com>
> >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at
> >>> DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...)
> >>>
> >>> Hi Margaret,
> >>>
> >>> On 11/02/2015 12:28 PM, CHIOSI, MARGARET T wrote:
> >>>> I think it is very important for the first version of governance
> that
> >> we have ARM/SOC vendor/future contributors to be part of TSC.
> >>>> If based on historical contribution - they will be at a
> disadvantage.
> >>>> We need to have the DPDK organization support an API which supports
> a
> >> broader set of chips.
> >>> I think there is definitely a role for SOC vendors in the project
> >> governance, but the TSC should be representative of the technical
> >> contributors to the project, rather than an aspirational body aiming
> to
> >> get more people involved.
> >>> I think there is an opportunity for future contributors/users to
> form
> >> a powerful constituency in the project, but the TSC is not the right
> >> place for that to happen IMHO.
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Dave.
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen@networkplumber.org]
> >>>> Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 12:22 PM
> >>>> To: Bagh Fares
> >>>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; dneary@redhat.com; jim.st.leger@intel.com;
> Pradeep
> >>>> Kathail (pkathail@cisco.com); CHIOSI, MARGARET T
> >>>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting
> at
> >>>> DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...)
> >>>>
> >>>> There were two outcomes.
> >>>>
> >>>> One was a proposal to move governance under Linux Foundation.
> >>>>
> >>>> The other was to have a technical steering committee.
> >>>> It was agreed the TSC would be based on the contributors to the
> >>>> project, although we didn't come to a conclusion on a voting model.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I would propose that TSC should be elected at regular user summit
> >>>> from nominees; in a manner similar to LF Technical Advisory Board.
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards,
> Red
> >>> Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> >>> Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy
> >> Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com
> >> Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338
> > .
> >