The discussion thread: https://lists.apache.org/list.html?dev@airflow.apache.org
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 17:38, Anush Shetty <anush.she...@qdrant.com> wrote: > 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 >> > >> >
