From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mcnamara, John" Subject: Re: [dpdk-techboard] decision process and DPDK scope Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 15:21:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1667864.GflPPoyiWF@xps13> <20170209122047.GA327480@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20170209144905.6dc0db5f@xeon-e3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Thomas Monjalon , "dev@dpdk.org" , "techboard@dpdk.org" To: Stephen Hemminger , "Richardson, Bruce" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170209144905.6dc0db5f@xeon-e3> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: dev [mailto:dev-bounces@dpdk.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Hemminger > Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 10:49 PM > To: Richardson, Bruce > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; dev@dpdk.org; > techboard@dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] decision process and DPDK scope >=20 > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:20:47 +0000 > Bruce Richardson wrote: >=20 > > > I think we can use this case to avoid seeing it again in the future. > > > I suggest that the technical board should check whether every new > > > proposed features are explained, discussed and approved enough in the > community. > > > If needed, the technical board meeting minutes will give some lights > > > to the threads which require more attention. > > > Before adding a new library or adding a major API, there should be > > > some strong reviews which include discussing the DPDK scope. > > > > > > > The bigger question here is the default position of the DPDK community > > - default accept, or default reject. Your statements above all are > > very much keeping in the style of default reject i.e. every patch or > > change suggested is assumed to be unfit for acceptance unless reviewed > > in detail to prove beyond doubt otherwise. > > > > I believe that we should change this default position, as I think that > > reject by default is hurting the community and will continue to do so. > > > > NOTE: I am not suggesting that we allow all code in with zero review, > > but I am suggesting that if something has been reviewed and acked by > > at least one reviewer it should be autom >=20 > I agree but in a more assertive manner. The maintainer should be the > default and active reviewer of all submissions. Like other projects the > maintainers job is to review and accept (or provide constructive > feedback). Otherwise the job could just by done by some manager. >=20 > But recently, I have changed my mind. The current DPDK project model is > not scaling well. After hearing some of the arguments in favor of a > multiple committer model (see "Maintainers Don't Scale" ) https://kernel- > recipes.org/en/2016/talks/maintainers-dont-scale/ >=20 > And comments on lwn: > https://lwn.net/Articles/703005/ Hi Stephen, That is an interesting case study. Perhaps it is something we could trial i= n 17.05 on one or more of the sub-trees. John