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

[Pradeep Kathail <pkathail@cisco.com>]

No one is proposing any close door planning session and commits for 
ARM port of DPDK already staretd.

Pradeep

On 11/3/15 3:35 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:16:16 -0800
> Pradeep Kathail <pkathail@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Pradeep
> Why doesn't one or more SOC vendors contribute patches or discuss
> the issues on the mailing list or at DPDK meetings. I dont think we
> need a behind closed doors planning session on this. Much prefer
> the old "consensus and running code model".
> .
>