potiuk commented on PR #1423: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow-site/pull/1423#issuecomment-3954974756
> This particular tool was released one day ago, has zero stars on GH, no issues, no PRs. I'm not at all saying we should revert this change, but I do wonder if we need a bit stricter criteria of what is included on the official Airflow ecosystem page. For example we have no idea if this project will take off or be found useful by the community and we can't just keep adding any tool people create as soon as they publish it (IMHO anyway). Curious to hear what others think! CC @potiuk @pierrejeambrun Look at the header of ecosystem page. We have exactly **0** decision making into what goes in there and exactly **0** responsibility for it as PMC. This is very clear at the ecosystem page: > These resources and services are not maintained, nor endorsed by the Apache Airflow® Community and Apache Airflow project (maintained by the Committers and the Airflow PMC). Use them at your sole discretion. The community does not verify the licences nor validity of those tools, so it’s your responsibility to verify them. > > If you would you like to be included on this page, please reach out to the [Apache Airflow dev or user mailing list](https://airflow.apache.org/community/) and let us know or simply open a Pull Request to that page. We only review whether it's not an obvious scam (i.e. description is different than it points to) and whether it is even valid after we merge it. This is **entirely** the responsibility of users to decide if they can trust those links. We even had an old link pointig to a site that was repurposed for scam - and we only removed it because we got noitified by one of our users. We take **no responsibility** for those links being "valid" at any point in time according to any criteria - because we physically can't unless there are some ways we can do automatically and proactivelyl If we were to `vet` and decide on what we add and aprove here then: * we would have to agree on criteria * and the way to evaluate it * and have at least a commitee to decide what should be and what should not be linked here. I think if we want to have some criteria (number of stars or whatever) then we should agree it on devlist, but currently the only criteria is "is it not an obvious scam". If you have some concrete proposals @o-nikolas - I think starting a discussion on devlist is a good point - ideally wiht some ideas how to do it, but also this bears some responsibilities on the PMC. If we set some criteria, we need to execute those criteria and have some responsibility to verify those and keep them verified. Those pages can change any time and start linking to any content (say adult content) - so if we do it, we need to have some ways ot verify if they have not changed. IMHO any proposal to verify and approve such content should also include ways and processes how we keep them following it. And any proposal here is welcome - but whatever we write in the preamble of the page, we should keep. Currently it's "sole discretion". which is an easy solutioin and the only one that we can currently commit to. But if there are any other proposals, I think posting them on devlist is a good idea. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
