[dpdk-dev] Project Governance and Linux Foundation

[Thomas Monjalon]

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.