DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 08:04:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F83B2@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161018162607.GA2721@localhost.localdomain>

> 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? 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

  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-19  8:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-10  8:33 O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-10-17 10:23 ` Hobywan Kenoby
2016-10-17 11:52   ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-10-17 12:40     ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] " Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-17 14:40       ` O'Driscoll, Tim
2016-10-18 13:22         ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-17 21:23     ` [dpdk-dev] " Dave Neary
2016-10-18 11:34       ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-18 13:27         ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-18 16:26           ` Jerin Jacob
2016-10-19  8:04             ` O'Driscoll, Tim [this message]
2016-10-19  8:40               ` Dave Neary
2016-10-19  9:56                 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-19  9:09               ` Jerin Jacob
     [not found] ` <20161018121629630001294@chinamobile.com>
2016-10-18 10:29   ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] How to printout PMD logs to console yingzhi
2016-10-18 10:58     ` Kavanagh, Mark B
2016-10-18 12:51   ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-users] Project Governance and Linux Foundation Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-21 14:00 ` [dpdk-dev] " Dave Neary
2016-10-21 17:20   ` Wiles, Keith
2016-10-22 19:27   ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-10-12  5:44 qin.chunhua
2016-10-12  7:43 ` Thomas Monjalon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F83B2@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com \
    --to=tim.odriscoll@intel.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dneary@redhat.com \
    --cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=users@dpdk.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).