[Rdma-developers] Re: [openib-general] OpenIB and OpenRDMA: Convergence on common RDMAAPIs and ULPs for Linux

[Grant Grundler]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:31:19PM -0700, Michael Krause wrote:
...
> Not intending 
> to offend anyone but if there can be no debate without implementation on 
> what is the right solution, then people might as well just go off and 
> implement and propose their solution for incorporation into the Linux 
> kernel.

That is certainly one option.
I didn't see anyone in openib.org trying to take that choice away.

Is it easier to submit a new subsystem than fixup an existing one?

I honestly don't know the answer since both options could fail
depending on how people approach them.  But my gut feeling is
if rdmaconsortium can't play nicely with openib.org, they won't
be able to play nicely with kernel.org either.

I've been advocating rdmaconsortium folks submit patches
against openib.org for several reasons:
1) start with a code base that works
2) start with a code base that is already upstream
3) get advice/guidance from people who know how to collaborate
   in an open source environment.

I thought (2) was the most important...but now I have to wonder
if it's really (3). Several very good people are driving
openib.org developement.


> Just having OpenIB subsume control of anything iWARP or impose only 
> DAPL for all RDMA infrastructure because it just happens to be there today 
> seems rather stifling.  Just stating that some OpenIB steering group is 
> somehow empowered to decide this for Linux is also rather strange.

"steering group" is Committee talk.
AFAICT the openib.org steering group doesn't control the content
of the svn.openib.org source tree. It manages things like web content,
overall charter, etc. People do NOT have to be members of the steering
committee or openib.org to become either maintainers or to submit code.


> Open source is about being open and not under the control of any one
> entity in the end.   Perhaps that is no longer the case.

No. SOME "entity" always controls what goes in (or not)
any given source tree.  That has nothing to do with open source.

Open source is about collaboration and being able to fork
if that collaboration ceases to be useful. One can substitute
"trust" for the word "collaboration" and it would be accurate too.
Figure out how to build trust (without contracts!) and then how
to get things done in open source becomes clear.

hth,
grant