From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dneary@redhat.com> Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 024B56CBB; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 10:40:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35DC68E3F2; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:40:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-41-137.bos.redhat.com (ovpn-116-99.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.99]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u9J8esIS022942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Oct 2016 04:40:55 -0400 To: "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>, Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <5805415E.3030102@redhat.com> <20161018113401.GA5434@localhost.localdomain> <1547412.qzivax5BEW@xps13> <20161018162607.GA2721@localhost.localdomain> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F83B2@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "users@dpdk.org" <users@dpdk.org> From: Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com> Message-ID: <58073195.60409@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:40:53 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F83B2@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.26 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.25]); Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:40:57 +0000 (UTC) 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 08:40:58 -0000 Hi, On 10/19/2016 09:04 AM, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: >> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com] >> 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 maintaining the current model? As far as I can see, the LF model provides everything 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 if 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 etc. The one issue I am aware of is that the Linux Foundation, in our previous discussions, requested that they take ownership of the dpdk.org domain name and management of the DNS, to ensure that the website and community infrastructure were not beholden to a single project member - is that still an issue? Regards, Dave. -- Dave Neary - NFV/SDN Community Strategy Open Source and Standards, Red Hat - http://community.redhat.com Ph: +1-978-399-2182 / Cell: +1-978-799-3338