From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Pradeep Kathail <pkathail@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK
 Userspace (was Notes from ...)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 09:02:26 -0800
Message-ID: <563A3A22.701@cisco.com>
References: <BLUPR0301MB16517A68D5DB10053F353753982F0@BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <20151102092153.3b005229@xeon-e3>
 <158A97FC7D125A40A52F49EE9C463AF522EE478A@MISOUT7MSGUSRDD.ITServices.sbc.com>
 <56379DE1.9020705@redhat.com>
 <BLUPR0301MB1651C776A4520A49F9659499982C0@BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <5637A387.3060507@redhat.com>
 <BLUPR0301MB1651FB584EAF082BFB3739C4982C0@BLUPR0301MB1651.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA6744CA22@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <5637EEC0.2020103@cisco.com> <20151103153530.296cc8f6@xeon-e3>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "CHIOSI, MARGARET T" <mc3124@att.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from alln-iport-7.cisco.com (alln-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.142.94])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC137231C
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Wed,  4 Nov 2015 18:02:28 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <20151103153530.296cc8f6@xeon-e3>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <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>

No one is proposing any close door planning session and commits for 
ARM port of DPDK already staretd.

Pradeep

On 11/3/15 3:35 PM, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:16:16 -0800
> Pradeep Kathail <pkathail@cisco.com> 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".
> .
>