From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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" To: Thomas Monjalon , "users@dpdk.org" , "dev@dpdk.org" CC: Hobywan Kenoby 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> <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-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: 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 ; 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.