From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Subject: Re: decision process and DPDK scope
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:23:42 +0100
Message-ID: <5235900.UHrQLgMuJO@xps13>
References: <1667864.GflPPoyiWF@xps13>
 <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722B9CB4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org
To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-wr0-f178.google.com (mail-wr0-f178.google.com
 [209.85.128.178]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633A3F95B
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu,  9 Feb 2017 14:23:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: by mail-wr0-f178.google.com with SMTP id k90so83496538wrc.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 09 Feb 2017 05:23:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA722B9CB4@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

2017-02-09 11:54, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> > I suggest that the technical board should check whether every new
> > proposed features are explained, discussed and approved enough in
> > the community.
> 
> I assume you don't mean every new feature, just those that involve
> major changes (new libraries, new/modified APIs etc.). Is that correct?

Yes, it is not about drivers. It is more about API.

> > If needed, the technical board meeting minutes will give some lights to
> > the threads which require more attention.
> > Before adding a new library or adding a major API, there should be
> > some strong reviews which include discussing the DPDK scope.
> > 
> > Openness of a large community is proven by its active feedbacks.
> 
> +1
> 
> At the moment, when there's no feedback on an RFC or patch set, there's no way of knowing whether that means people are happy with it or that nobody has reviewed it. Using the Tech Board to highlight RFCs/patch sets that require more review is a good idea.

Yes it is my thought: we should have several explicit agreements for
important patches.