From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 15:35:30 -0800 Message-ID: <20151103153530.296cc8f6@xeon-e3> 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" , "dev@dpdk.org" To: Pradeep Kathail Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com (mail-pa0-f50.google.com [209.85.220.50]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E6E8E7D for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2015 00:35:19 +0100 (CET) Received: by pasz6 with SMTP id z6so32672629pas.2 for ; Tue, 03 Nov 2015 15:35:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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".