-1 for now. I am not talking that I do not agree with having the provider, I just object to **just** start LAZY CONSENSUS without earlier discussion and explanation and justification why you think Qdrant is good for the community here and why it's not good to have Qdrant team to manage it on their one (seems that important part of Qdrant is the cloud offering, there is a team behind it and commercial player who could maintain the integration with Airflow probably), But I am guessing now - I would love to hear what is the governance of Qdrant, whether it's not an "open-core" solution where the open-source is pretty limited and pretty much forces you to use the cloud solution and finally whether the proposed provider is for pure open-source version or whether the main purpose of it is to integrate with the cloud service.
Particularly when such PR comes from someone who has - apparently commercial "qdrant.com" address and not someone who uses it from the community, suggest that you have skills and engineering time in your company to release and maintain it on your own. But that's largely a guess now. I think you should start a discussion and explain and convince us first, rather than asking for lazy consensus. Lazy consensus should be used only when things are pretty much following what everyone has been doing or when - from earlier discussion - it seems that there is a general consensus and no-one objects. This is is also very clearly stated in the process you were linking to: > Accepting new community providers should be a deliberate process that requires [DISCUSSION] followed by [VOTE] thread at the airflow devlist. It's very clearly stated there that voting (including LAZY CONSENSUS) should be only happening after [DISCUSSION] is done about it. While we do relax it for pure open-source solutions where we can see that governance is vendor neutral and that the software is true open-source and not open-core (All Apache Software Foundation projects are for example - that's why we put it in, in this case I don't think we have enough clarity whether qdrant falls into this "pure open-source" where especially governance is important. J. On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:44 AM Anush Shetty <anush.she...@qdrant.com> wrote: > Hi. > I am Anush—an integrations engineer at Qdrant. > > This is a request thread to add Qdrant - https://qdrant.tech, a > high-performance, vector search engine and database to the supported > providers. > > As mentioned in airflow/PROVIDERS.rst at main · apache/airflow (github.com > ) > < > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/PROVIDERS.rst#accepting-new-community-providers > >, > since Qdrant is an Apache-licensed, open-source software, I've raised this > [LAZY CONSENSUS] thread. > > The PR for the provider is up at Pull requests · apache/airflow ( > github.com) > <https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/36805>. > > I look forward to hearing from the community. > > Anush >
