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. Having said that, Does anyone see any issue in moving to LF? If yes, Then we should enumerate the issues and discuss further. Jerin