[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
2016-10-17 14:40, O'Driscoll, Tim: > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 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.
[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
2016-10-18 12:16, Liu Yuan: > China Mobile would like to support moving the DPDK project to the Linux > Foundation. OK, there can be some advantages to join the Linux Foundation. > DPDK is a key technology / element in the NFV. As an end user, we can foresee > the importance of DPDK in the future. If the DPDK project could be governed > by Linux Foundation, it will promote more companies to join in and contribute > to DPDK project. Same question as for ZTE, Why joining the Linux Foundation would help you to contribute? Is there an issue related to your patents? How to help you, specifically?
[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
> -Original Message- > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 1:41 PM > To: users at dpdk.org; dev at dpdk.org > Cc: O'Driscoll, Tim ; Hobywan Kenoby > > 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.
[dpdk-dev] [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.
[dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
I agree with Mr. Thomas Monjalon. Any optimization in DPDK structure should be made open.
