DPDK patches and discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:56:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2910976.FbCkPE2Lvx@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <58073195.60409@redhat.com>

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.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-19  9:56 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
2016-10-19  8:40               ` Dave Neary
2016-10-19  9:56                 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
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=2910976.FbCkPE2Lvx@xps13 \
    --to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
    --cc=dev@dpdk.org \
    --cc=dneary@redhat.com \
    --cc=jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=tim.odriscoll@intel.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).