From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0137.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.137]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD97C8D85 for ; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 19:02:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.162.214.145) by BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.162.214.145) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.312.18; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:02:35 +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 15.01.0312.014; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:02:35 +0000 From: Bagh Fares To: Dave Neary , "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" , Stephen Hemminger Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) Thread-Index: AQHRFZLz7/WNJG6ltkKhRrXsgLcQ/J6I/H4AgAAA5oCAAAJZkIAABGOAgAAAWRA= Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:02:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20151102092153.3b005229@xeon-e3> <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE478A@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com> <56379DE1.9020705@redhat.com> <5637A387.3060507@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5637A387.3060507@redhat.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; BLUPR0301MB1651; 5:w0ADgSZdAdjDvbzveCBOwLiEC9beHW4J0ORvjL+mkYtbbdls6RWXt2Mpd5KaEDD5yHwubHxH+nqo/tnEf0HSNNLpzVuWdgNd8nWWtAUCClpqdnKHb9CZfseuzuoDH66LAqsaD4hHSOJWyHDnUQv8Lw==; 24:9OeJKX0aYcZf0/GifRjbqMHv+C7a794oaPah7KSv8mOxEnbvhooQ9sQB0WMguwWKodsad+GqRGuzT7QtfEh44msTdkI5gxVvV4hVGIOfp3w=; 20:w/DS9Pe1LQzz/F2qaeHC8YppoNohI3T3QqjzTE0H8p90oFrSlCNQ9MZGPVCz9LAIPYkXh4NgeDVBVRdVmqK35g== x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:BLUPR0301MB1651; x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(97927398514766)(101931422205132)(95692535739014); x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(520078)(10201501046)(3002001); SRVR:BLUPR0301MB1651; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BLUPR0301MB1651; x-forefront-prvs: 0748FF9A04 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(164054003)(13464003)(479174004)(189002)(199003)(377454003)(24454002)(106356001)(81156007)(76576001)(74316001)(5001960100002)(5007970100001)(10400500002)(5004730100002)(77096005)(11100500001)(5001770100001)(587094005)(102836002)(15975445007)(2950100001)(92566002)(16601075003)(86362001)(40100003)(122556002)(93886004)(76176999)(189998001)(66066001)(50986999)(87936001)(5002640100001)(101416001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(2900100001)(97736004)(106116001)(5008740100001)(105586002)(99286002)(5003600100002)(33656002)(54356999)(561944003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR0301MB1651; 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: 02 Nov 2015 18:02:35.0244 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 710a03f5-10f6-4d38-9ff4-a80b81da590d X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR0301MB1651 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Pradeep Kathail \(pkathail@cisco.com\)" 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: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:02:38 -0000 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 t= erm, and based on shrinking silicon geometries, and desire to fill fabs, In= tel will do more SOCs. I was SOC design manager in Intel :-) We like to spare the customers like red hat, Cisco, and ATT the pain of sup= porting multiple APIs and code bases.=20 So we need have a forum/place where this can be worked at .=20 We are reaching out and we like to feel welcome and some love :-)=20 -----Original Message----- From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary@redhat.com]=20 Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 11:55 AM To: Bagh Fares-B25033 ; CHIOSI, MARGARET T ; Stephen Hemminger Cc: dev@dpdk.org; jim.st.leger@intel.com; Pradeep Kathail (pkathail@cisco.c= om) Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK U= serspace (was Notes from ...) Hi, On the contrary! I am aware that Freescale has been engaged for some time i= n 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 a= cceleration. We already contribute a lot to the linux community.=20 > So not sure why the doubt about of contribution? >=20 >=20 > -----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=20 > (pkathail@cisco.com) > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at=20 > DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) >=20 > Hi Margaret, >=20 > 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 br= oader set of chips. >=20 > I think there is definitely a role for SOC vendors in the project governa= nce, but the TSC should be representative of the technical contributors to = the project, rather than an aspirational body aiming to get more people inv= olved. >=20 > I think there is an opportunity for future contributors/users to form a p= owerful constituency in the project, but the TSC is not the right place for= that to happen IMHO. >=20 > Thanks, > Dave. >=20 >> -----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=20 >> Kathail (pkathail@cisco.com); CHIOSI, MARGARET T >> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at=20 >> 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. >> >=20 > -- > Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red=20 > Hat - http://community.redhat.com > Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338 >=20 -- 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