On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 08:04:19AM +0000, O'Driscoll, Tim wrote: > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob at 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 >
