From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [dpdk-techboard] next techboard meeting (13th, October) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:48:18 +0200 Message-ID: <21551753.7XufG5B5YW@xps> References: <20171011093618.hfvaftsqz6ihnph5@platinum> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: techboard@dpdk.org, "Wiles, Keith" , Olivier MATZ To: dev@dpdk.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 11/10/2017 14:41, Wiles, Keith: > > On Oct 11, 2017, at 4:36 AM, Olivier MATZ wrot= e: > > 1) ABI stability: > > - one LTS per year > > - 17.11 to be a LTS > > - every new API has the "experimental" tag > > - 3 Acks are needed for deprecation and they should come from differ= ent companies > > reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077937.html > > reference: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2017-October/077935.html >=20 > I assume the person or company that pushes the notice can be one of the A= CKs is this correct? >=20 > Also does the ACK need to come from a person working for a company or can= this person be an independent developer? Maybe a very minor point, but som= eone that is working for a company could Ack independent of the company if = so stated. Just be careful how you word the requirement, something like =E2= =80=98Only one Ack per company or independent developer=E2=80=99=20 As an open community, we should avoid sorting people per company. I prefer talking about different areas of interest. Anyway considering acks is a matter of confidence. We cannot have strict rules, but we can provide some guidelines.