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 > > >