From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <tim.odriscoll@intel.com> Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D03212B9E; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:04:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Oct 2016 01:04:23 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,513,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="21568191" Received: from irsmsx103.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.157]) by orsmga004.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Oct 2016 01:04:21 -0700 Received: from irsmsx108.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.11.164]) by IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.3.91]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:04:20 +0100 From: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com> To: Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> CC: Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>, "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org> Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation Thread-Index: AdIi0Am9XkA5c/YfTUiuKkI+LzQJygFj5VmUAAIf/0AAEw7GAAAdspMAAAP2BoAABj2OAAAh2JNw Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:04:19 +0000 Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F83B2@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <5805415E.3030102@redhat.com> <20161018113401.GA5434@localhost.localdomain> <1547412.qzivax5BEW@xps13> <20161018162607.GA2721@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20161018162607.GA2721@localhost.localdomain> Accept-Language: en-IE, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-titus-metadata-40: eyJDYXRlZ29yeUxhYmVscyI6IiIsIk1ldGFkYXRhIjp7Im5zIjoiaHR0cDpcL1wvd3d3LnRpdHVzLmNvbVwvbnNcL0ludGVsMyIsImlkIjoiNjQ1ZjE4ZGMtYmNmNS00NzkzLWE4MGYtYzI0Zjk2MThkMzBiIiwicHJvcHMiOlt7Im4iOiJDVFBDbGFzc2lmaWNhdGlvbiIsInZhbHMiOlt7InZhbHVlIjoiQ1RQX0lDIn1dfV19LCJTdWJqZWN0TGFiZWxzIjpbXSwiVE1DVmVyc2lvbiI6IjE1LjkuNi42IiwiVHJ1c3RlZExhYmVsSGFzaCI6IkNMMWZZN1I0S0E3Slc2eFZTR2wwQmZzdlwvZUZqVCtrbm9NN3pUM3FvSE53PSJ9 x-ctpclassification: CTP_IC x-originating-ip: [163.33.239.180] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/> List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>, <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:04:24 -0000 > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com] >=20 > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:27:27PM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2016-10-18 17:04, Jerin Jacob: > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:23:42PM -0400, Dave Neary wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > I would say that there is still a perception issue, for companies > who > > > > look at the active developers, the owners of the project's > resources > > > > (infra, domain name), and who have heard anecdotal evidence of > issues in > > > > the past. I think the project has made a lot of progress since I > have > > > > been following it, and I do not believe there are any major issues > with > > > > the independence of the project. However, there are still > concerned > > > > parties on this front, and the concerns can be easily addressed by > a > > > > move to the LF. > > > > > > +1 > > > > How can we solve issues if you don't give more details than > > "hear concerns" or "heard anecdotal evidence of issues"? >=20 > Honestly, I don't see any issue in the current DPDK project execution. > The concern was more towards the fact that multi-vendor infrastructure > project > like DPDK owned and controlled by the single company. >=20 > We believe, Moving to LF will fix that issue/perception and it will > enable more users to use/consume/invest DPDK in their products. +1. This is in danger of becoming a never-ending argument. We said in the o= riginal post that one of the goals of moving to LF is to "Remove any remain= ing perception that DPDK is not truly open". I believe that's an important = goal for the project and one that we should all agree on. Whether you choose the accept it or not, it's a fact that concerns exist in= the community over the fact that one single company controls the infrastru= cture for the project. Moving the project to an independent body like the L= F would fix that. > Having said that, Does anyone see any issue in moving to LF? > If yes, Then we should enumerate the issues and discuss further. This is a great point. Can you explain what you see as the benefits of main= taining the current model? As far as I can see, the LF model provides every= thing that we currently have, plus it makes DPDK independent of any single = company, and it also gives us the option of availing of other LF services i= f we choose to do so, including the ability to host lab infrastructure for = the project, legal support for trademarks if we need that, event planning e= tc. >=20 > Jerin