<html><body>
<p><tt><br>
> I've been advocating rdmaconsortium folks submit patches<br>
> against openib.org for several reasons:</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Probably, you meant openrdma.org opensource project but not</tt><br>
<tt>a standards setting body (i.e. RDMA consortium - </tt><br>
<a href="http://www.rdmaconsortium.org/home"><tt>http://www.rdmaconsortium.org/home</tt></a><tt>) :)</tt><br>
<tt><br>
> 1) start with a code base that works<br>
> 2) start with a code base that is already upstream<br>
> 3) get advice/guidance from people who know how to collaborate<br>
> in an open source environment.<br>
> <br>
> I thought (2) was the most important...but now I have to wonder<br>
> if it's really (3). </tt><br>
<br>
<tt>You are mistaken. I know people in the OpenRDMA community have </tt><br>
<tt>worked with the opensource projects before and they </tt><br>
<tt>know how to play and collaborate in an open source environment. </tt><br>
<tt>The early part of the work in openrdma is in fact, a true example </tt><br>
<tt>of that effort (which you may disagree with but having worked with</tt><br>
<tt>several other opensource projects and with OpenIB, we have</tt><br>
<tt>solved the issues which other projects including OpenIB have faced)</tt><br>
<tt>and the next phase of work which is of course the code development, </tt><br>
<tt>a key aspect of broader community effort. </tt><br>
<br>
<tt>I think we are diverging from the real issue - the fundamental differences </tt><br>
<tt>in the views of each community in how we can solve this common problem of</tt><br>
<tt>supporting multiple RDMA fabrics, which is what we need to focus on.</tt><br>
<tt><br>
> <br>
> > Just having OpenIB subsume control of anything iWARP or impose only <br>
> > DAPL for all RDMA infrastructure because it just happens to be there today <br>
> > seems rather stifling. Just stating that some OpenIB steering group is <br>
> > somehow empowered to decide this for Linux is also rather strange.<br>
> </tt><br>
<tt>> AFAICT the openib.org steering group doesn't control the content<br>
> of the svn.openib.org source tree. It manages things like web content,<br>
> overall charter, etc ....</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Don't agree. If you have read the email thread on this discussion, </tt><br>
<tt>you would find that steering committee need to decide whether openIB </tt><br>
<tt>should work on including the support for iWARP. Not that I am </tt><br>
<tt>supporting this idea -:)</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>In the opensource world, developers should/will have the freedom to </tt><br>
<tt>add what they want to do but of course, the acceptance of their contributions</tt><br>
<tt>into mainline is completely a different matter.<br>
</tt><br>
<tt>Thanks</tt><br>
<tt>Venkat</tt></body></html>