From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: Project Governance and Linux Foundation Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:27:27 +0200 Message-ID: <1547412.qzivax5BEW@xps13> References: <26FA93C7ED1EAA44AB77D62FBE1D27BA675F0B5A@IRSMSX108.ger.corp.intel.com> <5805415E.3030102@redhat.com> <20161018113401.GA5434@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org, users@dpdk.org To: Jerin Jacob , Dave Neary , "O'Driscoll, Tim" Return-path: Received: from mail-lf0-f44.google.com (mail-lf0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB2CA1518 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:27:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-lf0-f44.google.com with SMTP id x79so356234149lff.0 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:27:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20161018113401.GA5434@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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"?