2015-11-03 12:43, O'Driscoll, Tim: > From: Pradeep Kathail [mailto:pkathail at cisco.com] > > 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. > > I think we might be talking about 2 slightly different things. You're asking > how new contributors can participate and gain technical credibility. Anybody > can do that via the dev at dpdk.org mailing list. I'm sure patches, RFCs or > discussions on changes required in DPDK to better facilitate SoCs will be > welcomed. There have been some good examples of this over the last few days > on ARMv7/v8 support and a NEON-based ACL implementation. > > The Architecture Board isn't intended as a forum for design discussions, > which I think might be what you're looking for. It's intended to meet only > occasionally to cover the items outlined in the proposal. We discussed > composition of the board recently in Dublin and the community decided that, > while users and potential contributors have an important role to play in the > project, it should be composed solely of contributors. Dave Neary summed it > up well in a previous email on this: "The TSC should be representative of the > technical contributors to the project, rather than an aspirational body > aiming to get more people involved." > > It would be interesting to hear the thoughts of others on whether we should > consider an exception in this case.
The Architecture Board would be useful only in case a consensus cannot be reached. It has not happened yet. We are a truly open community so you just have to contribute to make things happen.
