and hopefully finalise it then.
Tim
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of O'Driscoll, Tim
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 5:55 PM
> To: 'dev at dpdk.org'
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Architecture Board Proposal
>
> In order to pr
In order to progress this, I'd like to summarise what's been discussed on the
mailing list so far (both in this thread and in the one Dave Neary started on
governance proposals from the Userspace event) and give a final chance to
people to provide any additional input. The main things that came
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:21:48 +
"O'Driscoll, Tim" wrote:
> At the recent DPDK Userspace event we agreed that we need a body to make
> technical decisions for the project. In Dublin we referred to this as a
> Technical Steering Committee, but that term is often used on other projects
> to
2015-10-30 13:23, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> From: Dave Neary
> > There was a general agreement in Dublin that DPDK related projects and
> > applications could live in dpdk.org, but we didn't really touch on the
> > process or requirements for adding new projects. I think it's
> > appropriate for the
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Dave Neary
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 1:11 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Architecture Board Proposal
>
> Hi,
>
> On 10/30/2015 07:0
On 10/30/2015 09:25 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-10-30 13:23, O'Driscoll, Tim:
>> From: Dave Neary
>>> There was a general agreement in Dublin that DPDK related projects and
>>> applications could live in dpdk.org, but we didn't really touch on the
>>> process or requirements for adding new
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 01:23:52PM +, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> That makes sense. So maybe what we're converging on is the following:
> - The scope of the Architecture Board covers all projects hosted on dpdk.org.
> - The Architecture Board will approve new projects to be hosted on dpdk.org.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dave Neary [mailto:dneary at redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 7:49 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim; dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Architecture Board Proposal
>
> Thanks Tim,
>
> Great to see some momentum c
Hi,
On 10/30/2015 07:01 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
>>> Scope
>>> -
>>> Issues that are within the scope of the Architecture Board include:
>>> - Project scope/charter. What is and isn't within the scope of the
>>> project? What happens if somebody wants to upstream a new
>>>
Hi Tim,
2015-10-29 15:21, O'Driscoll, Tim:
> Scope
> -
> Issues that are within the scope of the Architecture Board include:
> - Project scope/charter. What is and isn't within the scope of the project?
> What happens if somebody wants to upstream a new library/capability and it's
> not
> -Original Message-
> From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces at dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Monjalon
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 3:43 PM
> To: O'Driscoll, Tim
> Cc: dev at dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Architecture Board Proposal
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> 201
Thanks Tim,
Great to see some momentum coming out of DPDK Userspace.
On 10/29/2015 11:21 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> At the recent DPDK Userspace event we agreed that we need a body to
> make technical decisions for the project. In Dublin we referred to this
> as a Technical Steering Committee,
At the recent DPDK Userspace event we agreed that we need a body to make
technical decisions for the project. In Dublin we referred to this as a
Technical Steering Committee, but that term is often used on other projects to
describe a body with a more political charter. To avoid confusion, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
