From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2on0125.outbound.protection.outlook.com [65.55.169.125]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A59E8E8B for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 23:05:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.162.214.145) by BLUPR0301MB1650.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.162.214.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.318.15; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:05:55 +0000 Received: from BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.214.145]) by BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([10.162.214.145]) with mapi id 15.01.0318.003; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:05:55 +0000 From: Bagh Fares To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , Pradeep Kathail , 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: AQHRFZLz7/WNJG6ltkKhRrXsgLcQ/J6I/H4AgAAA5oCAAAJZkIAABGOAgAAAWRCAAD/JAIAAGYoAgADhewCAAJy+8A== Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 22:05:55 +0000 Message-ID: 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> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744D202@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744D202@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Fares.Bagh@freescale.com; x-originating-ip: [192.88.168.49] x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR0301MB1650; 5:IbTZ35xVWqMXyfY7vikfhdbR748PIZ9okKT7znznPgkWYBuBj2yMYrUPmzbe7j5HW1ju3EIDi8Rhw9yf+5Y7mZNWinxvYqBcTeK5Y8R0KXH1mPjkPx6wfSL1bKlroAoQiYNBQFQWWpHx9+u5hGgzrg==; 24:GEBKED6fdki06L+oGCnfu0mviVhrdQUJgAVmEJ+xdOyOyHwvc82JGDkVW6C5lTZF1whT3vaT4N4BQ+hi5y9eSneQIS6X5t2DDqYNM8HQlKM=; 20:Bn3VahcbxWuloo/KW2AjjdperAAb263n3LbbE12U0WRS2p3YWDppCQudJ5rv+R86C6tiCjOFy+RW3qM9QhWxJQ== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR0301MB1650; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(97927398514766)(101931422205132)(95692535739014)(228905959029699); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(520078)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BLUPR0301MB1650; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0301MB1650; x-forefront-prvs: 0749DC2CE6 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(189002)(24454002)(164054003)(479174004)(13464003)(199003)(377454003)(10400500002)(5002640100001)(107886002)(2501003)(40100003)(5003600100002)(5001960100002)(189998001)(11100500001)(122556002)(92566002)(33656002)(81156007)(15395725005)(561944003)(2950100001)(5001770100001)(97736004)(74316001)(66066001)(15975445007)(102836002)(2900100001)(5008740100001)(77096005)(76576001)(16601075003)(587094005)(19580405001)(106356001)(87936001)(99286002)(106116001)(105586002)(19580395003)(5007970100001)(93886004)(54356999)(50986999)(76176999)(86362001)(101416001)(5004730100002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0301MB1650; H:BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: freescale.com does not designate permitted sender hosts) spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: freescale.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Nov 2015 22:05:55.5855 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 710a03f5-10f6-4d38-9ff4-a80b81da590d X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0301MB1650 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 22:05:57 -0000 Tim Good clafication. What is the governance model. Can you point me to it? Tha= nks=20 -----Original Message----- From: O'Driscoll, Tim [mailto:tim.odriscoll@intel.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 6:43 AM To: Pradeep Kathail ; Bagh Fares-B25033 ; Dave Neary ; CHIOSI, MARGARET T ; Stephen Hemminger ; dev@dpdk.org Subject: RE: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK U= serspace (was Notes from ...) > -----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;=20 > Stephen Hemminger > Cc: dev@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at=20 > DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) >=20 > Tim and Dave, >=20 > I agree that an architecture board membership should be based on=20 > technical standing and contribution but at the same time, if you are=20 > trying to bring a new hardware paradigm into a project, you need to=20 > give a chance to some of those experts to participate and gain the=20 > standing. >=20 > If community is serious about supporting SOC's, my suggestion will be=20 > to allow few (2?) members from SOC community for limited time (6?=20 > 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=20 > >> 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=20 > >> :-) We like to spare the customers like red hat, Cisco, and ATT the=20 > >> 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=20 > > going > is through the mailing list. You could post a set of patches for=20 > proposed changes, a higher-level RFC outlining your thoughts, or just=20 > 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=20 > mentioned, we agreed at our recent Userspace event in Dublin that=20 > membership of the board should be based on contributions and technical=20 > standing in the community. The board will review and approve new=20 > 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=20 > >> 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=20 > >> at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On the contrary! I am aware that Freescale has been engaged for=20 > >> some time in DPDK. I was responding to Margaret's contention that=20 > >> future contributors (and she called out ARM and SOC vendors) should=20 > >> 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=20 > >>> ; Bagh Fares-B25033=20 > >>> > >>> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail > >>> (pkathail@cisco.com) > >>> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting=20 > >>> 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=20 > >>>> 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=20 > >> contributors to the project, rather than an aspirational body=20 > >> 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=20 > >> 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=20 > >>>> 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=20 > >>>> 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,=20 > >> Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com > >> Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 > > . > >