2016-10-19 09:40, Dave Neary: > On 10/19/2016 09:04 AM, 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: > > > > 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.
