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

[Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 15:40:55 +0000
Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote:

> > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com>
> > Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 12:08 AM  
> 
> > Well
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/policies-guidelines/tc-process-2017-05-
> > 26/#subcommittees
> > says "The deliverables of the SC are made only to the TC for such further action
> > as the TC may elect", so formally there was not degree of freedom in this
> > regard.
> >  
> I interpret it as,
> SC produced deliverables are for TC to take "action".
> Action = resolution = vote.
> 
> The intermediate work such as requirements, design, patches are accessible to the TC to comment/feedback to SC.
> Since Net SC didn't raise TC to vote for such work, there is no explicit action needed by TC in such case.
> 
> So, I don't see any freedom is lost.

I didn't claim a degree of freedom is lost, I claimed that there was no
degree of freedom in the first place. I a sense, that an OASIS SC can't
just decide about changes to an OASIS specification or standard. The
body that decides about that is the TC. There is no choice in this
matter.

I replied to (I quote): "Secondly, in the first proposal email it is
clearly mentioned that main tc must review the work produced by net sc."


> 
> And those TC members who have interest in net sc work, will join net SC anyway.

I object to that assumption.

> 
> > Please note that this is scoped to "the standard functionality across devices" for
> > some reason.
> >  
> How RSS hashing done or how/when packet time stamp done is related to sound device?
> I likely misunderstanding your above point.
> Can you please explain?
>  

BTW you tend to quote my words, but not the words I comment on, so yet
again I have to look at the previous mail, and quote from it to be
able to start explaining.

"""
3rd, main proposal clearly mentions the function of SC as first point,
snippet:

" Consults virtio tc, feed and use master virtio specification for
   the standard functionality across devices when applicable"
"""

In my response, I was referring to that sentence. In the meanwhile I'm
not sure how to read that sentence, but I'm pretty sure the part "for
the standard functionality across devices when applicable" is about
restricting the scope of some thing.

Could it be rewritten like:
  (1) Consult (the) virtio tc for the standard functionality across all
  devices when applicable. Feed and use (the) master virtio specification
  for the standard functionality when applicable.
or rather like
  (2) Consult (the) virtio tc. Feed and use (the) master virtio
  specification for the standard functionality accross devices when
  applicable. 
or rather like
  (3) Consult (the) virtio tc. Feed (the) master virtio specification,
  and use the master specification for the standard functionality
  accross devices when applicable. 
?

I assumed the (1) reading is the closest to what the authors of that
sentence intended to express. Because, (2) and (3) for example beg
the question "Consult the Virtio TC on what?" And in that case
" for the standard functionality accross devices when applicable" tells
us __on what__ and __when__ is the SC intent on consulting the virtio
TC and feed and use the "master virtio specification".

In any case all this is not all that important. I invested the time to
explain out of respect and courtesy. I hope it is not "straw man".


> > Then I don't understand the benefit of establishing a "Net SC", and possibly a "a
> > broader virtio-net community" around the "Net SC" for the people that are not
> > "Net SC" members but would like to partitipate in shaping "virtio-net".
> >  
> Again, Net SC is not taking away the ability for them to contribute/comment, because net sc uses the OASIS open forums.

I'm glad to hear that. Although I don't understand the details. Your
proposal contains little detains on how the SC intends to use
the OASIS open forums. Except for the matters of coming into existence
a a result of an virtio TC resolution, and interacting with the virtio
TC (I mean the sentence I just quoted).

> 
> > Then why not accept Stefan's proposal? In my opinion it has the __benefit__ of
> > being less bureaucratic.
> >  
> Please avoid implying that OASIS open defined subcommittee make things bureaucratic.
> OASIS open and this proposal thinks the opposite.
> 

Well I assume the TC would at least have to vote about creating an SC. 

> Please re-read the first email SOP. Net SC's charter is technical.
>

I just did. 
 
> I think I missed to include the note that Net SC keep the existing virtio spec changes by non virtio TC members open.
> (not the role or intention of Net SC to define what its parent virtio tc can/cannot do).
> 

And I still fail to understand what prevents you guys from
doing the technical work you want to do, having the meetings you want
to have, and submitting change requests for the one and single Virtio
Specification (not to some sort of **master** virtio specification as
implied by the sentence I have quoted above) using the current framework.


> > > Doing calls at virtio TC level requires change in the standing rule.
> > > "The Virtio TC has adopted a standing rule to conduct business only by  
> > electronic ballot, without Meetings"  
> > >  
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure, you misunderstood here something, Parav.
> >  
> Yes, I misunderstood.
> 
> I understood now that electronic form is only for the ballot purpose.
> Rest work doesn't need it, this is very good.
>

Exactly. The point I'm trying to make is: you did not demonstrate why
is creating the NET SC beneficial, let alone necessary with regards
to the goals you guys want to achieve. You keep saying that what you
want is "organized work" and "structured work". I fail to see,
why do we need a formal OASIS subcomittee to achieve your goal.
 
> > I do see why do you want to have some sort of a tag. But I fail to understand
> > why do you insist on the tag being "Net SC", and on establishing more or less
> > formal processes around it.
> >   
> In other industry consortiums that I am directly/indirectly involved such as siov, pci, nvme etc,
> It is named as "working group".
> On asking OASIS about it, they suggested the equivalent is subcommittee in OASIS for such focused project work.
> 

Stefan made an effort at explaining how the Virtio specification is
developed currently. That, along with the official documents around
OASIS and Virtio TC should be enough to actually figure it out. 

I'm not directly involved with the 'other industry consortium' you
mentioned above, and thus I'm not really familiar with how those
operate. But I have the feeling there are substantial differences
in how some PCI SIG (by the way SIG stands for Special Interest
Group) specifications are developed, and how the Virtio Specification is
developed. Trying to transfer your experience from there to Virtio might
not always be the best idea.

On a side note, I'm (as a voting member of the Virtio TC) happy to
discuss on improving that process, and I believe this is true for the
majority of the TC members -- but that is just my gut feeling.

> > In my understanding, what you really want is a "virtio-net interest group".  
> 
> If you care a lot for English, 

I don't really care that much for English. It is my forth
language, and I don't think I am very good at it. I care a lot
for specifications, and for clarity regardless of the language
in use. 

> you trivialize it a lot by calling it out an "interest group".

Sorry I must apologize if "interest group" is indeed a trivialization.
No offense intended. I did a quick search and according to
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/interest-group
the meaning ("a group of people who work together to achieve something
that they are particularly interested in") seems to somewhat fit...

> so I must say it is not a "interest group".
> It is a "work group" to produce work as part of virtio tc.

... but for some reason you seem to strongly prefer work group. So fine
let us call it a "work group" then. In any case, I believe you can
organize an informal work group with your (slightly modified) charter, do
your meetings, do your organized work, and contribute it to the virtio
community, and not lose a thing over having a formal NET SC.  And if your
group figures out that there is an even better way to do the organized
work, you can just do it. You don't have to come back to the TC to vote
about the change (of your constitutional document), or about dissolving
the current subcommittee, and creating an new one with new rules and/or
new mission. (I have to admit I didn't study the procedural details.)

> (without taking away ability for non TC members to contribute to virtio spec).

Well, that seems to somewhat contradict with what you have laid out up
till now. I.e. to contribute to the virtio-net part of the virtio spec
one is **expected** to be a NET SC member, and per definition all SC
members must be TC members.

> 
> > According to my understanding of how the standardization process for virtio
> > works, it does not impose restrictions on the process of coming up with a
> > proposal (patches), nor is the circle of entities who are allowed to submit
> > proposals. I believe all of the TC members would be very happy about very high
> > quality proposals that require no discussion, no changes, and can be voted in
> > without doing more iterations. It would indeed reduce workload. I don't thing
> > that talking to other people before submitting a proposal or in between
> > submitting proposals is disallowed. But that is just my opinion and I'm no
> > lawyer.
> > 
> > In summary, this "virtio-net subcommitee" is at idea, in its current form, and
> > with the current arguments presented has my NAK.  
> 
> As I responded to Stefan,
> 
> Net SC intents to do structured work in good spirit.

I'm not opposing 'structured work in good spirit', On the
contrary! But I do fail to see the benefits of creating a formal
subcommittee for that.

> 
> I don't see Net SC can success in execution if you or Stefan see it as separate body from virtio TC.
> (and net sc is not/cannot be different part from virtio tc).
> 
> In our view those existing virtio TC members who really care for improving the virio-net as we listed in mission & SOP, should join the net SC.
> 
> Being new to virtio tc, I am familiar with contribution of Michael and Jason Wang in improving virio net.
> So, a humble request to both to join if they can help to improve the pace towards described mission, SOP.
> 

Sorry, I don't think I have voted about creating the so called NET SC. So
form where I stand, the NET SC does not exist. And one can not join
something that does not exist. We are still discussing if creating
a the NET SC is a good idea or not. I see, that you Parav are 
convinced it is, but I'm not.

> And same humble request to all virtio tc members who wants to give early feedback (during requirements, design, WIP spec patches) to Net SC, should also join.
> 

And what about any virtio TC non-members. Should they join as well? 

Regards,
Halil

[..]