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