[dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Call - Beyond DPDK 2.0

[dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Call - Beyond DPDK 2.0

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

There's been a good discussion on the mailing list on the Beyond DPDK 2.0 thread. To supplement this, we'd like to have a community call for people to air their views, and to help progress things towards a conclusion. It'll be an open format, so people can bring up whatever issues they want, but some topics for discussion might include:
- Decision-making process. What do we do if issues don't reach a conclusion on the mailing list? Does stalemate just mean no change, or do we need some other mechanism to decide? A good example of an issue that may not reach a clear conclusion is the proposal move to github, where some seem to be in favour and others against.
- How do we encourage more contributors to DPDK?
- What tool/process improvements do we need to make? Further discussion of github is one obvious example.

GoToMeeting Details:
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/556212525

You can also dial in using your phone.
Ireland +353 (0) 19 030 010

Access Code: 556-212-525

More phone numbers
United States (Long distance): +1 (646) 749-3129
Australia (Long distance): +61 2 8355 1020
Austria (Long distance): +43 (0) 7 2088 1047
Belgium (Long distance): +32 (0) 28 08 4368
Canada (Long distance): +1 (647) 497-9353
Denmark (Long distance): +45 (0) 69 91 89 28
Finland (Long distance): +358 (0) 942 59 7850
France (Long distance): +33 (0) 170 950 594
Germany (Long distance): +49 (0) 692 5736 7317
Italy (Long distance): +39 0 247 92 13 01
Netherlands (Long distance): +31 (0) 208 080 219
New Zealand (Long distance): +64 (0) 9 280 6302
Norway (Long distance): +47 75 80 32 07
Spain (Long distance): +34 911 82 9906
Sweden (Long distance): +46 (0) 852 500 186
Switzerland (Long distance): +41 (0) 435 0167 13
United Kingdom (Long distance): +44 (0) 330 221 0088

Here's the time in a variety of time zones:
Dublin (Ireland) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM IST UTC+1 hour
San Francisco (U.S.A. - California) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM PDT UTC-7 hours
Phoenix (U.S.A. - Arizona) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM MST UTC-7 hours
Boston (U.S.A. - Massachusetts) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
New York (U.S.A. - New York) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
Ottawa (Canada - Ontario) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
London (United Kingdom - England) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM BST UTC+1 hour
Paris (France) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:00:00 PM CEST UTC+2 hours
Tel Aviv (Israel) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM IDT UTC+3 hours
Moscow (Russia) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM MSK UTC+3 hours
New Delhi (India - Delhi) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:30:00 PM IST UTC+5:30 hours
Shanghai (China - Shanghai Municipality) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 PM CST
UTC+8 hours Corresponding UTC (GMT) Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 15:00:00

Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Call - Beyond DPDK 2.0

[Dave Neary]

Hi Tim,

When were you thinking of having the call?

It's not been explicit, but can I assume that this call will also be
promoted among potential supporters of the project who may not be on
this list? I would be interested to get the perspective from the people
who are perhaps not developers who decide whether their organization
engages strategically with a project or not.

Thanks,
Dave.

On 05/01/2015 06:20 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> There's been a good discussion on the mailing list on the Beyond DPDK 2.0 thread. To supplement this, we'd like to have a community call for people to air their views, and to help progress things towards a conclusion. It'll be an open format, so people can bring up whatever issues they want, but some topics for discussion might include:
> - Decision-making process. What do we do if issues don't reach a conclusion on the mailing list? Does stalemate just mean no change, or do we need some other mechanism to decide? A good example of an issue that may not reach a clear conclusion is the proposal move to github, where some seem to be in favour and others against.
> - How do we encourage more contributors to DPDK?
> - What tool/process improvements do we need to make? Further discussion of github is one obvious example.
> 
> GoToMeeting Details:
> Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone.
> https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/556212525
> 
> You can also dial in using your phone.
> Ireland +353 (0) 19 030 010
> 
> Access Code: 556-212-525
> 
> More phone numbers
> United States (Long distance): +1 (646) 749-3129
> Australia (Long distance): +61 2 8355 1020
> Austria (Long distance): +43 (0) 7 2088 1047
> Belgium (Long distance): +32 (0) 28 08 4368
> Canada (Long distance): +1 (647) 497-9353
> Denmark (Long distance): +45 (0) 69 91 89 28
> Finland (Long distance): +358 (0) 942 59 7850
> France (Long distance): +33 (0) 170 950 594
> Germany (Long distance): +49 (0) 692 5736 7317
> Italy (Long distance): +39 0 247 92 13 01
> Netherlands (Long distance): +31 (0) 208 080 219
> New Zealand (Long distance): +64 (0) 9 280 6302
> Norway (Long distance): +47 75 80 32 07
> Spain (Long distance): +34 911 82 9906
> Sweden (Long distance): +46 (0) 852 500 186
> Switzerland (Long distance): +41 (0) 435 0167 13
> United Kingdom (Long distance): +44 (0) 330 221 0088
> 
> Here's the time in a variety of time zones:
> Dublin (Ireland) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM IST UTC+1 hour
> San Francisco (U.S.A. - California) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM PDT UTC-7 hours
> Phoenix (U.S.A. - Arizona) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM MST UTC-7 hours
> Boston (U.S.A. - Massachusetts) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
> New York (U.S.A. - New York) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
> Ottawa (Canada - Ontario) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
> London (United Kingdom - England) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM BST UTC+1 hour
> Paris (France) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:00:00 PM CEST UTC+2 hours
> Tel Aviv (Israel) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM IDT UTC+3 hours
> Moscow (Russia) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM MSK UTC+3 hours
> New Delhi (India - Delhi) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:30:00 PM IST UTC+5:30 hours
> Shanghai (China - Shanghai Municipality) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 PM CST
> UTC+8 hours Corresponding UTC (GMT) Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 15:00:00
> 
> 

-- 
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

Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Call - Beyond DPDK 2.0

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> 
> When were you thinking of having the call?

I put the day and time at the end of the email, but it probably should have been at the start! Apologies that this wasn't clear.

Dublin (Ireland) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM IST UTC+1 hour
San Francisco (U.S.A. - California) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM PDT UTC-7 hours
Phoenix (U.S.A. - Arizona) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM MST UTC-7 hours
Boston (U.S.A. - Massachusetts) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
New York (U.S.A. - New York) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
Ottawa (Canada - Ontario) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
London (United Kingdom - England) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM BST UTC+1 hour
Paris (France) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:00:00 PM CEST UTC+2 hours
Tel Aviv (Israel) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM IDT UTC+3 hours
Moscow (Russia) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM MSK UTC+3 hours
New Delhi (India - Delhi) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:30:00 PM IST UTC+5:30 hours
Shanghai (China - Shanghai Municipality) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 PM CST
UTC+8 hours Corresponding UTC (GMT) Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 15:00:00

> It's not been explicit, but can I assume that this call will also be
> promoted among potential supporters of the project who may not be on
> this list? I would be interested to get the perspective from the people
> who are perhaps not developers who decide whether their organization
> engages strategically with a project or not.

I think this is a great idea. Anybody should feel free to pass this on to other interested parties. If we have more contributors to the discussion then the output should be more representative of current and future community needs.


Tim

Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Call - Beyond DPDK 2.0

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

This is just a reminder that this call is on tomorrow, at the following times, which is just under 24 hours from now.

Dublin (Ireland) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM IST UTC+1 hour
San Francisco (U.S.A. - California) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM PDT UTC-7 hours
Phoenix (U.S.A. - Arizona) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM MST UTC-7 hours
Boston (U.S.A. - Massachusetts) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
New York (U.S.A. - New York) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
Ottawa (Canada - Ontario) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT UTC-4 hours
London (United Kingdom - England) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM BST UTC+1 hour
Paris (France) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:00:00 PM CEST UTC+2 hours
Tel Aviv (Israel) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM IDT UTC+3 hours
Moscow (Russia) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM MSK UTC+3 hours
New Delhi (India - Delhi) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:30:00 PM IST UTC+5:30 hours
Shanghai (China - Shanghai Municipality) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 PM CST
UTC+8 hours Corresponding UTC (GMT) Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 15:00:00


It would be good to have as much representation as possible from DPDK contributors and users, so that the discussion reflects the views and needs of the community.


Tim

> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll, Tim
> 
> > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> >
> > When were you thinking of having the call?
> 
> I put the day and time at the end of the email, but it probably should
> have been at the start! Apologies that this wasn't clear.
> 
> Dublin (Ireland) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM IST UTC+1 hour
> San Francisco (U.S.A. - California) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00
> AM PDT UTC-7 hours
> Phoenix (U.S.A. - Arizona) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM MST
> UTC-7 hours
> Boston (U.S.A. - Massachusetts) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM
> EDT UTC-4 hours
> New York (U.S.A. - New York) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT
> UTC-4 hours
> Ottawa (Canada - Ontario) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT
> UTC-4 hours
> London (United Kingdom - England) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM
> BST UTC+1 hour
> Paris (France) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:00:00 PM CEST UTC+2 hours
> Tel Aviv (Israel) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM IDT UTC+3 hours
> Moscow (Russia) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM MSK UTC+3 hours
> New Delhi (India - Delhi) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:30:00 PM IST
> UTC+5:30 hours
> Shanghai (China - Shanghai Municipality) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at
> 11:00:00 PM CST
> UTC+8 hours Corresponding UTC (GMT) Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 15:00:00
> 
> > It's not been explicit, but can I assume that this call will also be
> > promoted among potential supporters of the project who may not be on
> > this list? I would be interested to get the perspective from the
> people
> > who are perhaps not developers who decide whether their organization
> > engages strategically with a project or not.
> 
> I think this is a great idea. Anybody should feel free to pass this on
> to other interested parties. If we have more contributors to the
> discussion then the output should be more representative of current and
> future community needs.
> 
> 
> Tim

Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Call - Beyond DPDK 2.0

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

Thanks to all who attended and contributed to yesterday's discussion. For the benefit of those who couldn't attend, here's a brief summary of what was covered. Please feel free to point out any errors or omissions.

Decision Making
- There was a discussion on whether we need a Technical Steering Committee or similar decision-making forum. The scope would be to make long-term, strategic decisions and to provide a resolution for issues that do not reach a consensus on the mailing list.
- Some felt that this was a good idea and would help to reach a timely conclusion on contentious issues. Others felt that these issues should be resolved on the mailing list and/or by the Maintainer.

Github
- There was some discussion on the merits of github. As with the mailing list discussion on this, some were in favour and some against.
- Nothing is stopping people using github today and then submitting pull requests. 

DPDK Industry Representation
- At the moment, we don't have any project-level DPDK entity or budget that would ensure DPDK representation at relevant events. It's left to individual contributors to do this.

Independent Ownership
- It was suggested that it would be better to have independent community ownership of the DPDK project.
- The argument against this is that the ownership of the infrastructure (website, git repo) is not important and can be easily cloned if required.

Next Steps
- The conclusion was to have further discussion on the mailing list, and possibly schedule a follow-up call in 2-3 weeks.


Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll, Tim
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 4:35 PM
> To: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Call - Beyond DPDK 2.0
> 
> This is just a reminder that this call is on tomorrow, at the following
> times, which is just under 24 hours from now.
> 
> Dublin (Ireland) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM IST UTC+1 hour
> San Francisco (U.S.A. - California) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00
> AM PDT UTC-7 hours
> Phoenix (U.S.A. - Arizona) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM MST
> UTC-7 hours
> Boston (U.S.A. - Massachusetts) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM
> EDT UTC-4 hours
> New York (U.S.A. - New York) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT
> UTC-4 hours
> Ottawa (Canada - Ontario) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT
> UTC-4 hours
> London (United Kingdom - England) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM
> BST UTC+1 hour
> Paris (France) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:00:00 PM CEST UTC+2 hours
> Tel Aviv (Israel) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM IDT UTC+3 hours
> Moscow (Russia) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM MSK UTC+3 hours
> New Delhi (India - Delhi) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:30:00 PM IST
> UTC+5:30 hours
> Shanghai (China - Shanghai Municipality) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at
> 11:00:00 PM CST
> UTC+8 hours Corresponding UTC (GMT) Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 15:00:00
> 
> 
> It would be good to have as much representation as possible from DPDK
> contributors and users, so that the discussion reflects the views and
> needs of the community.
> 
> 
> Tim
> 
> > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll, Tim
> >
> > > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> > >
> > > When were you thinking of having the call?
> >
> > I put the day and time at the end of the email, but it probably should
> > have been at the start! Apologies that this wasn't clear.
> >
> > Dublin (Ireland) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00 PM IST UTC+1 hour
> > San Francisco (U.S.A. - California) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00
> > AM PDT UTC-7 hours
> > Phoenix (U.S.A. - Arizona) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:00:00 AM MST
> > UTC-7 hours
> > Boston (U.S.A. - Massachusetts) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM
> > EDT UTC-4 hours
> > New York (U.S.A. - New York) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM
> EDT
> > UTC-4 hours
> > Ottawa (Canada - Ontario) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 11:00:00 AM EDT
> > UTC-4 hours
> > London (United Kingdom - England) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 4:00:00
> PM
> > BST UTC+1 hour
> > Paris (France) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 5:00:00 PM CEST UTC+2 hours
> > Tel Aviv (Israel) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM IDT UTC+3
> hours
> > Moscow (Russia) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 6:00:00 PM MSK UTC+3 hours
> > New Delhi (India - Delhi) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 8:30:00 PM IST
> > UTC+5:30 hours
> > Shanghai (China - Shanghai Municipality) - Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at
> > 11:00:00 PM CST
> > UTC+8 hours Corresponding UTC (GMT) Tuesday, May 12, 2015 at 15:00:00
> >
> > > It's not been explicit, but can I assume that this call will also be
> > > promoted among potential supporters of the project who may not be on
> > > this list? I would be interested to get the perspective from the
> > people
> > > who are perhaps not developers who decide whether their organization
> > > engages strategically with a project or not.
> >
> > I think this is a great idea. Anybody should feel free to pass this on
> > to other interested parties. If we have more contributors to the
> > discussion then the output should be more representative of current
> and
> > future community needs.
> >
> >
> > Tim

Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Call - Beyond DPDK 2.0

[Dave Neary]

Thanks for the notes Tim!

I had intended to participate, but didn't realise that there was a
conflict with an OPNFV call at the same time, and a calendaring snafu.

In the interests of having some more focussed discussion, I have some
questions on the notes to get beyond passive voice. I think it will be
useful to have concrete proposals and understand the positions of
various entities participating in the project (both individuals and
companies).

On 05/13/2015 07:19 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> Thanks to all who attended and contributed to yesterday's discussion. For the benefit of those who couldn't attend, here's a brief summary of what was covered. Please feel free to point out any errors or omissions.
> 
> Decision Making
> - There was a discussion on whether we need a Technical Steering Committee or similar decision-making forum. The scope would be to make long-term, strategic decisions and to provide a resolution for issues that do not reach a consensus on the mailing list.
> - Some felt that this was a good idea and would help to reach a timely conclusion on contentious issues. Others felt that these issues should be resolved on the mailing list and/or by the Maintainer.

In this case, the problem statement could be that it's unclear how items
can be proposed for inclusion in future releases, and how decisions on
inclusion are made once proposals are made. Is that correct?

I am a big fan of transparency in the decision making processes of a
project. The Linux decision process might be described as: "Subsystem
owners are kings of their space, but if there is a lack of consensus,
Linus decides". That works because people trust Linus to be an unbiased
arbitor of what is best for Linux.

What would the equivalent de facto decision making process for DPDK be?
And does it need changing? In the interests of clarity, my understanding
is that "the Maintainer" in the note above is Thomas Monjalon - can I
just confirm that this is true and understood by all?

> Github
> - There was some discussion on the merits of github. As with the mailing list discussion on this, some were in favour and some against.
> - Nothing is stopping people using github today and then submitting pull requests. 

My feeling is that the tools discussion belies something deeper - it
could be "reviewing patches and getting a list of unreviewed patches is
hard", it could be "patches are not reviewed quickly enough", it could
be "there is no way to tell once a patch has been reviewed what, if any,
remediation is needed for the patch to be committed". I would like to
get some feeling on what people see as the underlying fundamental issue
which the tools change might address.

Can someone deeply involved in the project have a go at defining a patch
review workflow problem statement, please?


> DPDK Industry Representation
> - At the moment, we don't have any project-level DPDK entity or budget that would ensure DPDK representation at relevant events. It's left to individual contributors to do this.
> 
> Independent Ownership
> - It was suggested that it would be better to have independent community ownership of the DPDK project.
> - The argument against this is that the ownership of the infrastructure (website, git repo) is not important and can be easily cloned if required.

Were there any concrete proposals or requirements laid out in the call?

>From my point of view, there are a few things which are important here:
 - Community ownership of the DPDK trademark
 - The ability to pool resources and enter into contracts for things
like marketing, developer event organisation, ordering swag
 - The perception of a level playing field
 - A framework for commercial entities to indicate their support for
(and intention to participate in) the project

The key word here is perception: DPDK is seen as an Intel platform only
project by those outside the project, and dpdk.org is seen as a 6WIND
owned community space.

I think that it would be valuable to have an independent entity who
could, without a huge cost structure, manage the trademark, enable the
pooling of resources, and provide a framework for commercial engagement
(whether that be through membership, sponsorship, a user advisory group,
whatever avenue is most appropriate).

Some options I see for that entity are the Software Freedom Conservancy,
the Linux Foundation (although I suspect the cost structure would be too
high for what we need), Software in the Public Interest, or some new
non-profit we create just for DPDK. There are a few other options too.
But to evaluate the options, we need the problem statement, and a set of
requirements. I don't think we have that yet (my effort at defining the
requirements is above).

Thanks,
Dave.

-- 
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

Re: [dpdk-dev] DPDK Community Call - Beyond DPDK 2.0

[O'Driscoll, Tim]

Some great input Dave. We discussed a number of issues yesterday which, while related, should probably be treated separately for clarity. For each of these, I think we need to start with a clear problem statement and a concrete proposal for change.

I've added some further comments on the specific items below.

> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]
> 
> Thanks for the notes Tim!
> 
> I had intended to participate, but didn't realise that there was a
> conflict with an OPNFV call at the same time, and a calendaring snafu.
> 
> In the interests of having some more focussed discussion, I have some
> questions on the notes to get beyond passive voice. I think it will be
> useful to have concrete proposals and understand the positions of
> various entities participating in the project (both individuals and
> companies).
> 
> On 05/13/2015 07:19 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > Thanks to all who attended and contributed to yesterday's discussion.
> For the benefit of those who couldn't attend, here's a brief summary of
> what was covered. Please feel free to point out any errors or omissions.
> >
> > Decision Making
> > - There was a discussion on whether we need a Technical Steering
> Committee or similar decision-making forum. The scope would be to make
> long-term, strategic decisions and to provide a resolution for issues
> that do not reach a consensus on the mailing list.
> > - Some felt that this was a good idea and would help to reach a timely
> conclusion on contentious issues. Others felt that these issues should
> be resolved on the mailing list and/or by the Maintainer.
> 
> In this case, the problem statement could be that it's unclear how items
> can be proposed for inclusion in future releases, and how decisions on
> inclusion are made once proposals are made. Is that correct?
> 
> I am a big fan of transparency in the decision making processes of a
> project. The Linux decision process might be described as: "Subsystem
> owners are kings of their space, but if there is a lack of consensus,
> Linus decides". That works because people trust Linus to be an unbiased
> arbitor of what is best for Linux.
> 
> What would the equivalent de facto decision making process for DPDK be?
> And does it need changing? In the interests of clarity, my understanding
> is that "the Maintainer" in the note above is Thomas Monjalon - can I
> just confirm that this is true and understood by all?

Yes, the Maintainer is Thomas. We do have the concept of separate Maintainers for each library (documented in the MAINTAINERS file), but Thomas is the overall Maintainer.

As a follow-on to yesterday's call, I'm going to start a separate thread specifically on decision making and the role of a TSC.

> > Github
> > - There was some discussion on the merits of github. As with the
> mailing list discussion on this, some were in favour and some against.
> > - Nothing is stopping people using github today and then submitting
> pull requests.
> 
> My feeling is that the tools discussion belies something deeper - it
> could be "reviewing patches and getting a list of unreviewed patches is
> hard", it could be "patches are not reviewed quickly enough", it could
> be "there is no way to tell once a patch has been reviewed what, if any,
> remediation is needed for the patch to be committed". I would like to
> get some feeling on what people see as the underlying fundamental issue
> which the tools change might address.
> 
> Can someone deeply involved in the project have a go at defining a patch
> review workflow problem statement, please?

+1 Any volunteers?

> > DPDK Industry Representation
> > - At the moment, we don't have any project-level DPDK entity or budget
> that would ensure DPDK representation at relevant events. It's left to
> individual contributors to do this.
> >
> > Independent Ownership
> > - It was suggested that it would be better to have independent
> community ownership of the DPDK project.
> > - The argument against this is that the ownership of the
> infrastructure (website, git repo) is not important and can be easily
> cloned if required.
> 
> Were there any concrete proposals or requirements laid out in the call?
> 
> From my point of view, there are a few things which are important here:
>  - Community ownership of the DPDK trademark
>  - The ability to pool resources and enter into contracts for things
> like marketing, developer event organisation, ordering swag
>  - The perception of a level playing field
>  - A framework for commercial entities to indicate their support for
> (and intention to participate in) the project
> 
> The key word here is perception: DPDK is seen as an Intel platform only
> project by those outside the project, and dpdk.org is seen as a 6WIND
> owned community space.
> 
> I think that it would be valuable to have an independent entity who
> could, without a huge cost structure, manage the trademark, enable the
> pooling of resources, and provide a framework for commercial engagement
> (whether that be through membership, sponsorship, a user advisory group,
> whatever avenue is most appropriate).
> 
> Some options I see for that entity are the Software Freedom Conservancy,
> the Linux Foundation (although I suspect the cost structure would be too
> high for what we need), Software in the Public Interest, or some new
> non-profit we create just for DPDK. There are a few other options too.
> But to evaluate the options, we need the problem statement, and a set of
> requirements. I don't think we have that yet (my effort at defining the
> requirements is above).

We didn't discuss specifics in the call, but you've identified the main options. To reach a conclusion on this, I agree that somebody needs to define a clear problem statement, evaluate the alternatives, and propose a solution, then we can see if people agree or not.