Re: [virtio] [PATCH] virtio-net subcommittee proposal

[Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 03:06:02PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> 
> 
> > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Monday, April 3, 2023 10:58 AM
> > 
> > Why not just do this in the VIRTIO TC?
> > 
> > The workflow and infrastructure for developing the VIRTIO spec already exists.
> > A weekly or bi-weekly virtio-net call can be scheduled.
> >
> 
> > Are you hitting scalability bottlenecks or limitations with the current VIRTIO TC?
> 
> May be.
> SC is mainly networking specific interested members who has the described mission and SOP.
> This requires interworking on many features, discussion, and design in phased approach like suggested above.
> 
> Also it is too much of the ask for the whole TC to get involved in such process.

Today, voting members get involved in parts of VIRTIO to the extent that
they want. They can ignore certain parts and abstain from voting.

If we get to a point where the majority of voting members abstains
regularly, then I think it's worth discussing how to scale the TC to
avoid wasting people's time with votes that they abstain from. I haven't
seen this happen and I think people who are voting members try to take a
broad view as custodians of the spec rather than focussing on just one
feature they care about.

> Better to start with forum that is focused on mission and SOP, committed to deliver on agreed timeline in 4 step approach.
> 
> Few months later when operation works fine, may be main TC can also adopt similar approach to wider level.

Discussing this is important for the wider VIRTIO community. If the
process needs changes for virtio-net, then other parts of VIRTIO can
probably also benefit.

Can you explain why the regular VIRTIO process is not suitable for
developing virtio-net? Can you give examples of issues you hit in the
past?

Stefan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature