> -----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 07:01 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 > >>> library/capability and it's not clear whether it fits within DPDK > or > >>> not? As a random example, if somebody wanted to upstream a DPDK- > >> enabled > >>> TCP/IP stack to dpdk.org, should that be accepted or rejected? > >> > >> I agree with Thomas here that this seems like it would be a separate > >> project under dpdk.org, rather than part of DPDK - I think it's OK > for > >> the Architecture Board to own the scope of "projects on dpdk.org" > rather > >> than just DPDK. > > > > I think there are two questions here. The first is one that Thomas > raised and you've also touched on: Is the scope of the Architecture > Board just DPDK (i.e. everything in http://dpdk.org/browse/dpdk/), or is > it everything hosted on dpdk.org (list at: http://dpdk.org/browse/). My > original intent was just DPDK, but I'm fine with either option. > > > > The second question is who decides whether something is within the > scope of DPDK or not? A TCP/IP stack was just an example. If I were to > submit patches for a DPDK-accelerated IPsec library (librte_ipsec), who > would decide whether that's OK or if it needs to reside somewhere else > outside of the DPDK? I think that managing the scope of the project > should be one of the roles of the Architecture Board. > > The issue I see is that if we agree that the architecture board's scope > is limited to DPDK only, and the architecture board owns the scope of > DPDK, that we still have the open question of which projects are > appropriate to be housed under dpdk.org > > 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 architecture board to own those too. >
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. - If it's not clear whether a new piece of functionality resides within one of the existing projects on dpdk.org or needs a new project of its own, the Architecture Board will decide. Is that in line with your thoughts on this? Tim