From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com (mail-wm0-f53.google.com [74.125.82.53]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A756CCC for <users@dpdk.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:56:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id g16so6351208wmg.0 for <users@dpdk.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 02:56:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s+eYfLUp0XN4SLTBb7TOJhSqowkH2DLAnHqNkK8i3jo=; b=EHmfsVPJeRGxmewXadtJt5G9nIYoAIaI/1u4T54FE4F17PHcOkZvgIpHHE3eBDaQ7V AcOQgenogjg/9VueFc89Wc66qr7yHisIat60yS/YihltKFHDQxWhLAzdQEOAJ7J1ZlV0 GD8CJV80tbeYz9Q2fk2AyriydS5Y0Z5mM4Ip0MzWbkqh7+ngrzPBH0seYyi3huS/4zJ2 RjtV98qWOyfWnQmvwzvPLwPZc/0VWOGpL2ML/teHzFNvsOpgMLo3DnqFh2+CDpgQBWGO cA7nF0kBB/jJHCvGxuiKAe1o/9qwEAmWXEsw4+Jn6Dela3pLLfLP7Xx4Ve1eO/U5ivGG l5aw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s+eYfLUp0XN4SLTBb7TOJhSqowkH2DLAnHqNkK8i3jo=; b=FoN2HGH8CaFarCEQ5hT4ILNGFNDAO0TRA3DRbZ/JWive/Xl9CIgS29YDtSdfXTYt6O pyqLuDg2OvsAMTNLoiwoUAHLEGkjSZRdmGKm43N6DZkHYqP4oytN3uccHajZvv9wpRSW Ntl5VMLZP0LWQrEKV+GawXNDnprC1qcbjquKECDmBiEBt0yT7ud9uVolIvW3l6IHcn+8 omRKQYV+kA9tMm6Bh5AgZ0oLyibovB+K5I5AKBy2N7LKBq2lTpoSP/Y87wkj78B8LNCb Pi7HV7r1BOi/9XKXPH1OoGiZGOpaReJLxUHbFWoPecYBx/HuaZzQ0CtMkymeEXhNxAtC OssA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RkeBDRJGT0XUFLGWobkixwYZixCWklbaPAfB8fS/l1RRyQcvXxB/un4xIq06ozvE9wN X-Received: by 10.28.170.142 with SMTP id t136mr1994779wme.118.1476870998617; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 02:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xps13.localnet (184.203.134.77.rev.sfr.net. [77.134.203.184]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hb5sm67622963wjc.5.2016.10.19.02.56.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 19 Oct 2016 02:56:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> To: Dave Neary <dneary@redhat.com>, "O'Driscoll, Tim" <tim.odriscoll@intel.com>, Jerin Jacob <jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org, users@dpdk.org Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:56:36 +0200 Message-ID: <2910976.FbCkPE2Lvx@xps13> User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.5.4-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <58073195.60409@redhat.com> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F83B2@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <58073195.60409@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: Re: [dpdk-users] [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation X-BeenThere: users@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: usage discussions <users.dpdk.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/users>, <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/users/> List-Post: <mailto:users@dpdk.org> List-Help: <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/users>, <mailto:users-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:56:39 -0000 2016-10-19 09:40, Dave Neary: > On 10/19/2016 09:04 AM, 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: > > > > 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. Yes, being truly open and welcome all contributors is important. > > 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. Sure I accept that one have concerns even if I don't understand them. I was just asking questions to try understanding the concerns. But unfortunately, we have no answer on these (see also how ZTE and China Mobile do not answer). > > > 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. Tim, are you asking me to argue in favor of the current model? I said multiple times that having an infrastructure with legals may be interesting, and that resources for event planning sounds great. See also this answer: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2016-October/049098.html > 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? Sorry to not be able to answer, I do not manage this adminitrative question. I think the discussion must continue during the summit. My conclusion on this thread: I was very active in the creation of dpdk.org with the goal of gathering and welcoming every contributors. That's why I want to understand the feedbacks. Then I will embrace the collective decision with the joy to see this successful project satisfying its community.