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

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

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 18:03:23 +0000
Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote:

> > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 6, 2023 11:52 AM  
> 
> > This was not mentioned in your original email.   
> SOP is written as wider purpose and not nit picking specific operational/verbose detail.
> 
> > Taking virtio-net away into your
> > own sub-committee and relegating the VIRTIO TC to making editorial changes is
> > a major change.   
> 
> All I can say is, you have a major misunderstanding and/or paranoia.

Hi Parav!

I'm with Stefan on this one.

@Stefan: Thank you very much for having this discussion with Parav! I
find your arguments very persuasive, and I agree, the added value
of establishing a subcommittee was not demonstrated.

> 
> I disagree to almost all the words written above.
> Above text is completely wrong attribution of what we described in previous email and first emails.
> 
> First, it is not "mine" or "yours".
> As repeatedly told, net SC is made from virtio TC members. So, it is not "mine".
> It is proposed by 4 virtio tc member organizations which are active spec contributors, reviewers, spec implementors, spec consumers , not "me".
> 

I'm not a native speaker, and maybe I should refrain form commenting on
English, but I will do it nevertheless. AFAIK in English 'yours'
is personal pronoun 'you' in its possessive form and corresponds
to second person singular or plural. I don't know what made you
to jump to the conclusion that singular was meant.

Your comment sounds like as if you would have preferred if Stefan
were to use first person plural i.e. 'our' but I argue, that
would have been both grammatically and semantically wrong. Stefan
is challenging your approach and your arguments: calling those
his also his own would be silly.

> Secondly, in the first proposal email it is clearly mentioned that main tc must review the work produced by net sc.
> And same is also repeated in previous email response.

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.

> 
> If you assumed, vN at stage 3, and vN+1 is at stage 4 for editorial changes by main TC, then it is wrong assumption.

But when pushed on the question, what is supposed to be the benefit of
the SC, you wrote the following "In one line, we anticipate that actual
spec patch vN to vN+1 should be around editorial changes and not design
changes." and I have a hard time reading this substantially differently
than I believe Stefan did.

For what it is worth, you already demonstrated your ability and
willingness to say things such as "Comments have not come on time." (for
reference
https://www.mail-archive.com/virtio-dev@lists.oasis-open.org/msg10609.html).

 
> 
> 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"
> 
> So yet again, net SC do not want to bypass main virtio TC.
>

Please note that this is scoped to "the standard functionality across
devices" for some reason.
 
> The whole perception of yours that Net SC is detached or "away" from main virtio TC is simply incorrect.
> 

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".

> > You need to make an effort to show why this process change is
> > good for the VIRTIO community, not just for you.
> >  
> VIRTIO TC != VIRTIO community as per the OASIS virtio TC charter.
> 
> Secondly it is not for "me". It is proposed by list of companies from diverse area.
> Please refer to the original first email at the end.

Again the same singular vs plural thing.

> 
> > VIRTIO operates like an open source project. Anyone can propose spec changes
> > or provide feedback. Whether that person is a hardware developer, hypervisor
> > developer, driver developer, academic, hobbyist, etc doesn't matter. You need
> > to accept that there are other stakeholders and engage in technical discussion
> > with them, not try to change the process so you can bypass them.
> >   
> Yet again wrong attribution of "bypassing" them.
> 
> Net SC DO NOT want to bypass anyone.
> If a hobbyist does not want to join virtio TC and still wants to contribute to virtio spec for net, what prevents such contribution? Nothing.
> Virtio main TC will review it as done today.
> 
> Also first draft clearly said, everyone is welcome to be part of the SC who share the same mission and SOP as SOP is asked by the OASIS.

I fail to gasp the benefit of the extra SOP as well as the benefit of
establishing a formal SC.

[..]

> 
> > Here is a suggestion for achieving some of what you want within the existing
> > process:
> > 
> > - Send an email announcing a recurring public call to work on virtio-net
> >   enhancements suitable for PCI hardware implementation.  
> It is not limited to only PCI hardware.
> > - For each call, send an agenda ahead of time listing specific
> >   virtio-net features that will be discussed.
> > - Conduct written discussions of requirements and design on the virtio
> >   mailing list as necessary.
> > - Agree on how to divide up the spec writing work.
> > - Spec writers submit the spec changes to the mailing list for review.
> >  
> Exactly. 
> Stefan, what you wrote above is no different than what is proposed.

Then why not accept Stefan's proposal? In my opinion it has the
__benefit__ of being less bureaucratic.

> This targeted efforts under OASIS purview is tagged as net-subcommittee.
> 
> So I am puzzled that you agree to do above way, but against tagging it as sub-committee even though its under purview of OASIS and under virtio TC.
> 

If it is just about "tagging", then I propose you should prefix all the
patches, cover letters, and other contributions to the virtio community
like problem statemets or proposed designs, that are about "virtio-net"
and use a capable email client filter for the stuff you care about.


> > This approach will allow you to get people on the same page before the spec
> > writing and review.
> > 
> > Here is how this approach matches what you've written:
> >   
> > > 0. Amount of changes a virtio net needs to undergo are huge that requires  
> > better design approach than just "sending patches".
> > 
> > Requirements and design can be discussed in calls and/or on the mailing list
> > before sending patches.
> >  
> 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.

[..]

> In summary, I disagree to the attribution you did about Net SC due to misunderstanding/paranoia (my humble guess).
> 
> And I totally agree to all the suggestions you made to do organized work, which is what tagged as Net SC.
> 
> Are you ok to tag your suggestions for organized work as "Net SC"?

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 my understanding, what you really want is a "virtio-net interest
group". 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.

Regards,
Halil