From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B755934;
 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:40:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20])
 by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2016 07:40:58 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,357,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="20385871"
Received: from irsmsx106.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.31])
 by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2016 07:40:56 -0700
Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.164]) by
 IRSMSX106.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.8.209]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002;
 Mon, 17 Oct 2016 15:40:55 +0100
From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>, "users@dpdk.org"
 <users@dpdk.org>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
CC: Hobywan Kenoby <hobywank@hotmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Thread-Index: AdIi0Am9XkA5c/YfTUiuKkI+LzQJygFj5VmUAAIf/0AAAMs9gAAGDKeg
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:40:54 +0000
Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F707A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <DB5PR06MB1686CA2F232716D9E2D2D0ACC0D00@DB5PR06MB1686.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
 <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F6F33@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com>
 <56798548.UUDuXfq43Z@xps13>
In-Reply-To: <56798548.UUDuXfq43Z@xps13>
Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNjMwZTA5NzItNDY2Ny00OGI1LWE2M2UtZTU1ZTIwNDU2NmEyIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IndUTlh5dHQzNXlkV0Ixdk8yc0ZZMWltNkFqUEtcLzhLaVpLQk5jK01jTlhjPSJ9
x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC
x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: usage discussions <users.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/>
List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>,
 <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:40:59 -0000



> -----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 <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>; Hobywan Kenoby
> <hobywank@hotmail.com>
> 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.