Team, I would like to discuss the future relationship of the NiFi and MiNiFi projects, considering in particular whether MiNiFi should pursue promotion to an independent Apache Top Level Project.
The NiFi and MiNiFi projects have had a long history of interoperability through common contracts and shared implementation strategies. The Java version of MiNiFi was merged into the primary NiFi repository several years ago, but maintains a module structure that is mostly decoupled from the NiFi framework. The C++ version of MiNiFi has had an independent repository, issue tracking system, and release cadence since its inception. In terms of project governance, the NiFi Project Management Committee is responsible for everything. In practice, however, responsibility for MiNiFi, and the C++ version in particular, resides with a subset of NiFi PMC members. The arrangement has worked more or less, but as work continues on both projects, it is becoming increasingly clear that knowledge of both projects is not common. This is a natural result of independent languages, and distinct implementations. For this reason, bringing on new members to the NiFi PMC does not necessarily benefit both projects. Although issue tracking is independent, it also means that project discussions generally skew in the direction of NiFi. These are not problems in themselves, but these realities highlight the functional independence of NiFi and MiNiFi. There are technical questions to consider, in terms of API surfaces like C2 protocol manifests and common Python Processors interfaces. However, these technical questions can be addressed in various ways, such as promoting certain shared elements to independent repositories similar to the Apache NiFi API. The real questions concern governance. As mentioned, the C++ version of MiNiFi already has functional independence in several key areas. Promotion to a TLP would clarify participation and qualification for PMC membership in both NiFi and MiNiFi. As a TLP, MiNiFi would also enjoy a more direct presence, rather than a project page under the NiFi website. This would not necessitate any changes to current NiFi PMC or committer membership, as participation in multiple Apache projects is common in places like the Iceberg ecosystem. This would require both technical and procedural work, but having clarity of governance should provide a better path forward for both projects. Regards, David Handermann
