[dev] Discussion on "Linux Foundation Networking Projects"

Russ White russ at riw.us
Wed Dec 6 07:46:47 EST 2017

> What it is unclear, is the way the new board of the Linux Foundation
> Networking fund will allocate funding to projects under this umbrella.

Correct -- and this is exactly what disturbs me. Rather than allowing companies to supply resources to work on specific projects, this will force them to put their money into a large pool, and then "negotiate" to get their money pushed to the "right" project, hoping as little is "stripped" for other projects as possible. My guess is this will do exactly the opposite of what the Linux Foundation intends -- for instance, if I wanted work done on FRR, rather than giving money to the foundation, and then directing it be used on FRR, I would contract with a private company to do the work, avoiding the Linux Foundation entirely.

In other words, what the Linux foundation intends is to better fund the projects this board thinks is interesting, while allowing the rest of the projects in the "umbrella" to simply die off or somehow develop a community of coders and other support with reduced funding so the "big fish" are better funded. This is great for the projects the Foundation thinks is important, and might help unify the community around just a few projects. On the other hand, it stifles the creation of new and interesting projects, and probably sidelines the Foundation itself, turning funds away from the Foundation, and causing a lot of headaches down the road. As a specific instance, Open Switch is mentioned as an "important project." IMHO, Open Switch is poorly designed, and is the opposite of a "big fish" -- it's a "has been," and the community should move on. Inertia, on the other hand, is hard to stop, whether the project is a good idea or not.

IMHO, this is a bad idea, and I don't think FRR should participate in it. 

> And least, but not last, we will become a shark in the big pond and agree to
> protect the small fish ;-)

Can you, personally, protect all the "small fish?" And what about all the other sharks protecting their "small fish?" The end result is a lot more politics, and lot less work actually being done. 

I understand the goal to reduce the breadth of projects, and being some coherence to the overall community. But is the Foundation the right place to be making commercial decisions about winners and losers?



More information about the dev mailing list