2015-05-19 11:34, Neil Horman: > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 07:43:14AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > Composition of the TSC should reflect contributions to the project, but be > > > balanced so that no single party has an undue influence. It should also be > > > kept to a manageable size(maybe 7?). > > > > > > The TSC should elect its own chair, who would have the deciding vote in > > > the event that the TSC was deadlocked. Once in place, the TSC should > > > approve any new members. > > > > > > Specific details on membership can be discussed and agreed later, if we > > > agree on the creation of a TSC. > > > > TSC should be limited to those individuals and companies that have > > contributed in a non-trivial way to the DPDK distributed code base. > > It should not be a users group, or place for network vendors who take but > > never give back. > > > +1 > > It should also endavour to only act as a fallback body for any issues commonly > handled by the development communtiy (patch acceptance/review, etc)
I agree that it should be a fallback. And I'm wondering how useful it would be: have we ever known such discussion or conflict without finding a solution or a consensus? By the way, is there a TSC in Linux netdev?
