From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB0D8E7B for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:43:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2015 04:43:22 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,238,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="841470722" Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.159]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2015 04:43:20 -0800 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.138]) by IRSMSX104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.150]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 12:43:19 +0000 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" To: Pradeep Kathail , Bagh Fares , Dave Neary , "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" , Stephen Hemminger , "dev@dpdk.org" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) Thread-Index: AdETO3UNrTlKQ/IxR1OwaDiPUSWx2gCV4JSAAAA2sAAAABzCgAAAdDuAAABjPoAAAEDSAAAHU5bQAAOhHAAAGJo+kA== Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 12:43:18 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744D202@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <20151102092153.3b005229@xeon-e3> <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE478A@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com> <56379DE1.9020705@redhat.com> <5637A387.3060507@redhat.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744CA22@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.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] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) 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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 12:43:23 -0000 > -----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 ...) >=20 > Tim and Dave, >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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 askin= g how new contributors can participate and gain technical credibility. Anyb= ody can do that via the dev@dpdk.org mailing list. I'm sure patches, RFCs o= r 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 day= s on ARMv7/v8 support and a NEON-based ACL implementation. The Architecture Board isn't intended as a forum for design discussions, wh= ich I think might be what you're looking for. It's intended to meet only oc= casionally to cover the items outlined in the proposal. We discussed compos= ition of the board recently in Dublin and the community decided that, while= users and potential contributors have an important role to play in the pro= ject, 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 ai= ming 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 >=20 > Pradeep >=20 > 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 ; CHIOSI, MARGARET T > >> ; Stephen Hemminger > >> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail > >> (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 ; Stephen Hemminger > >>> ; Bagh Fares-B25033 > >>> > >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail > >>> (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 > > . > >