From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Neary Subject: Re: Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 12:04:01 -0700 Message-ID: <555CDAA1.7030703@redhat.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D43080@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFAD9C320 for ; Wed, 20 May 2015 21:04:03 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA54D43080@IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.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" Hi, On 05/14/2015 01:55 PM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > At Tuesday's Beyond DPDK 2.0 call, one topic we discussed was decision making and whether we need a Technical Steering Committee (TSC). As a follow-up to that discussion, I'd like to propose that we create a TSC for DPDK to guide the long-term strategic direction of the project. As others have said, I think a TSC can have value, more as the "guardian of the roadmap", a place to engage to set high level goals and priorities for the project. And as Neil and Thomas said, I also agree that it does not make sense for the TSC to get involved in the day-to-day of the project (patch review, for example). There is a danger with TSCs that you end up with "design by committee" - but I think that is a risk that can be mitigated by limiting the scope. In terms of membership: I do think it's important to have the voice of users in the technical community, but I agree with Stephen that the TSC would not be the appropriate forum for that. Thanks, Dave. -- 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