Yes. Thank you. What we like is to get to a point where we discuss API and align on APIs for SOC as Margaret mention. As you know Arm has been driving ODP as the API for SOC. What we like to do is to drive the APIs under DPDK even for Arm SOC. Long term, and based on shrinking silicon geometries, and desire to fill fabs, Intel will do more SOCs. I was SOC design manager in Intel :-) We like to spare the customers like red hat, Cisco, and ATT the pain of supporting multiple APIs and code bases. So we need have a forum/place where this can be worked at . We are reaching out and we like to feel welcome and some love :-)
-----Original Message----- From: Dave Neary [mailto:dne...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 11:55 AM To: Bagh Fares-B25033 <Fares.Bagh at freescale.com>; CHIOSI, MARGARET T <mc3124 at att.com>; Stephen Hemminger <stephen at networkplumber.org> Cc: dev at dpdk.org; jim.st.leger at intel.com; Pradeep Kathail (pkathail at cisco.com) <pkathail at cisco.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) Hi, On the contrary! I am aware that Freescale has been engaged for some time in DPDK. I was responding to Margaret's contention that future contributors (and she called out ARM and SOC vendors) should have a voice. I hope that clarifies my position and meaning. Thanks, Dave. On 11/02/2015 12:44 PM, Bagh Fares wrote: > As SOC vendor we will contribute heavily to the project. Example crypto > acceleration. We already contribute a lot to the linux community. > So not sure why the doubt about of contribution? > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary at redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 11:31 AM > To: CHIOSI, MARGARET T <mc3124 at att.com>; Stephen Hemminger > <stephen at networkplumber.org>; Bagh Fares-B25033 > <Fares.Bagh at freescale.com> > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; jim.st.leger at intel.com; Pradeep Kathail > (pkathail at cisco.com) <pkathail at cisco.com> > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposals from project governance meeting at > DPDK Userspace (was Notes from ...) > > 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 > -- 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
