Re: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

[Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com>]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:04:19AM +0000, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote:
> > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> > 
> > 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"?
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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 original post that one of the goals of moving to LF is to "Remove any remaining 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 infrastructure for the project. Moving the project to an independent body like the LF 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 maintaining the current model?

We don't see any additional benefits of maintaining the current model(when we
compare with LF 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.
> 
> > 
> > Jerin
>