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

[Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>]

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