Re: [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

["O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>]

> -----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
> 
> 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.