Hi Jarek.
Thanks for taking the time to take a look at this.
If you feel we can't have a [LAZY CONSENSUS] since there's a company behind
the Qdrant project, that's completely fine.
I'll open a discussion thread to follow this up.


On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 17:24, Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> wrote:

> -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
> >
>

Reply via email to