From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:40:54 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F707A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F6F33@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <56798548.UUDuXfq43Z@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Hobywan Kenoby To: Thomas Monjalon , "users@dpdk.org" , "dev@dpdk.org" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56798548.UUDuXfq43Z@xps13> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:41 PM > To: users@dpdk.org; dev@dpdk.org > Cc: O'Driscoll, Tim ; Hobywan Kenoby > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation >=20 > 2016-10-17 11:52, O'Driscoll, Tim: > > From: Hobywan Kenoby > > > The current DPDK version can run on virtually all processors (Intel, > IBM > > > and ARM) and leverage all NICs: is there **really** anyone > questionning > > > openness of the community? > > > > I still hear concerns on this, and based on discussions with others > who > > put their names to the post below, they do too. > > I think it's a perception that we need to address. >=20 > It is simple to address this perception with fact checking. > The next releases will provide even more code for ARM and NPUs. > If someone submits some good code and is ignored, it is easy enough > to ping the mailing list and make it visible. > If someone sees any regression on his architecture, we care. > Please let's stop maintaining confusion on this topic. >=20 > DPDK *is* truly open. Well, to be a little more specific, the concern I've heard on many occasion= s is that 6WIND control the infrastructure for the project and so effective= ly have a veto over what's accepted into DPDK. Your argument is that you've= never exercised that veto, which is true, but you still have the ability t= o do so. That's not a characteristic of a truly open project. As stated in = the original post on this: > - The infrastructure for a project like DPDK should not be owned and cont= rolled by any single company.