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 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? > > Do we need a board to define the scope of this board? ;)
:-) > The only reason I see to reject a project, would be to consider that the > project is not related to DPDK enough. I think it will be an obvious decision. > So it shouldn't be a high responsibility nor a high workload to add to this > board. > But clearly, the hosted projects (except DPDK itself) should not be impacted > by the DPDK board. You have a good point - and in the spirit of "the board exists only to make decisions that aren't converging in the community", maybe we don't need more. Dave. -- 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