From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC137231C for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 18:02:28 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1059; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1446656548; x=1447866148; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wa226g+7ue1Yv/xnSgxpGBIeVwulFql/wfZwvxfMJ+4=; b=S2/NkL1LJKO7YPNYSeAVtsw+GbNXvWLUkVPe0ayMd+ieI1j8cG1ehgKz 8Ibko/+OwFnPNrRKEbFug8WNcXRa3CS1Z8/KO1fqy1XqjgB7xO+3X4O1M Grkpp3OeU8DZlACjNaOUZBNhdf97nnXYLp/260MAz4ZHMyk7EuIU8lojs 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BCBQCsOTpW/5BdJa1egzuBQrsegimBXYYTAoFBOhIBAQEBAQEBgQqENgEBBDgzAQIIAxALEgYJJQ8COA4GDQYCAQEQiBrCKwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARuGVYR+hDSFBAEEjhGIN40jiRuTJigBOoJEgWEdNINqgUoBAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,243,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="205008172" Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2015 17:02:27 +0000 Received: from [10.24.160.109] ([10.24.160.109]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tA4H2QS4005528; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 17:02:27 GMT To: Stephen Hemminger 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> <20151103153530.296cc8f6@xeon-e3> From: Pradeep Kathail Message-ID: <563A3A22.701@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:02:26 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151103153530.296cc8f6@xeon-e3> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" , "dev@dpdk.org" 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: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 17:02:29 -0000 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 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". > . >