Hi Margaret, On 11/02/2015 12:28 PM, CHIOSI, MARGARET T wrote: > I think it is very important for the first version of governance that we have > ARM/SOC vendor/future contributors to be part of TSC. > If based on historical contribution - they will be at a disadvantage. > We need to have the DPDK organization support an API which supports a broader > set of chips.
I think there is definitely a role for SOC vendors in the project governance, but the TSC should be representative of the technical contributors to the project, rather than an aspirational body aiming to get more people involved. I think there is an opportunity for future contributors/users to form a powerful constituency in the project, but the TSC is not the right place for that to happen IMHO. Thanks, Dave. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:stephen at networkplumber.org] > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 12:22 PM > To: Bagh Fares > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; dneary at redhat.com; jim.st.leger at intel.com; Pradeep > Kathail (pkathail at cisco.com); CHIOSI, MARGARET T > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK > Userspace (was Notes from ...) > > There were two outcomes. > > One was a proposal to move governance under Linux Foundation. > > The other was to have a technical steering committee. > It was agreed the TSC would be based on the contributors to the project, > although we didn't come to a conclusion on a voting model. > > > I would propose that TSC should be elected at regular user summit from > nominees; > in a manner similar to LF Technical Advisory Board. > -- 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
