From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f170.google.com (mail-qt0-f170.google.com [209.85.216.170]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67832E41 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:22:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-qt0-f170.google.com with SMTP id f6so158599052qtd.2 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:22:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bOwTAK7x8cltCSl9Dd+cyveIb3Jex2wzBtOABUx6saE=; b=GVybaNyaiz86t83q+2+i2H0f2qQzOC2dn0gQhJskjSJYcg7+2XZuTa6Xwi2KxXFH8b 6TP8hxUo0j36tYepC4q7K0AJszz5LFxxWEE7qe0WVTY0iFAhk2ytSNKw0uS6PqaOr0+q iWbwTIUFVspjzZnUDMB5ppoIsIW1ExkaQcaHGK5NU50qzOQ++8/0pGr2PBWayZhygC5Q d1+2OYXhrNydg69EQDXXIb+gI4EZknUnc3T45CA4gN11OP06LbOv00C5Tv5E1sJA5Wco dHYuLCuSM0r70UA0UYG5pFvRTGtn6P3EJGbfwB7d7VKFKCZmj53JgYuGgqOrkUR5Tpa1 wZkg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=bOwTAK7x8cltCSl9Dd+cyveIb3Jex2wzBtOABUx6saE=; b=hDD01Gs2qFFLgvXeVz8Mc3OskCE9F+QYW94y3eVLmTPuWogCV1oQOjyn3L2mvpTc/H EVtGHeaurV7d3mlBmWa8iGNgf1iZDUhCj150msE7EDaMPLT5zF8cmaGxl19IyVjell4X cEu3x46XDEQM8tmxf4vHnrw6VCSdBAvuEo5Gw8Ww+Q0l9X05osduha6qtwsHClqZzogj W0mExRENOLahB2OB5py38c/or4chS5J6XCWVrY90X53aC/UtCYOgq9xSErFNUgm28lIC L3X6Z9WJLDNMO0ph/4gyO7tjSgynfgpalHnoxHKD75csl0Rs7Np4mxW8jnmOSuQ0dWAw TyzQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmFPUObip8dknWtpfjv2D7kEFTWGB/VKfo2ww7fsTvjqySwb2g2ICCq18bBSNQ3qpmz X-Received: by 10.28.73.214 with SMTP id w205mr12123841wma.86.1476796965206; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:22:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id kg7sm62722830wjb.34.2016.10.18.06.22.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:22:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" Cc: users@dpdk.org, dev@dpdk.org Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:22:43 +0200 Message-ID: <3186590.lufkk4CdAp@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F707A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <56798548.UUDuXfq43Z@xps13> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F707A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:22:46 -0000 2016-10-17 14:40, O'Driscoll, Tim: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > DPDK *is* truly open. > > Well, to be a little more specific, the concern I've heard on many occasions is that 6WIND control the infrastructure for the project and so effectively 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 to 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 controlled by any single company. Technically yes, we can improve that part, at the cost of more coordination with more administrators, and without being sure that everybody will trust this new organization. I would like to highlight that this supposed veto cannot really be exercised because feedbacks are open on the mailing list. I'm worried that we are talking too much about a veto situation which does not happen, and would mean ignoring some comments, whereas the real issue is the lack of reviews. Apart that, I still think such organization can be interesting for other (legals and budget) reasons. At this point, I must admit that moving the project infrastructure will have at least one big benefit: stopping this kind of discussion. And such discussion will probably never happen again because nobody will take the risk of annoying the big vendors supporting the new organization. One can wonder whether it is an improvement.