Thanks for all the interaction thus far! One important thing worth highlighting is the reality of operation versus the perceived benefits of one path or another.
The current reality is that MiNiFi is effectively operating as an independent project. Although this has worked to some degree with a smaller PMC membership, it becomes more challenging as participation grows on both projects. As one concrete example, the recent release for MiNiFi 0.99.2 [1] had to be extended given the lack of binding votes. This reflects the reality that most NiFi PMC members are not familiar enough to provide confident binding votes. One solution under the current model is to add more NiFi PMC members who contribute solely to MiNiFi. Given the much larger scope of NiFi, however, and the fact that there is no notion of subdivision from a PMC governance perspective, I am not comfortable proceeding in that direction. It could also be argued that adding NiFi PMC members who have no understanding of MiNiFi is problematic, although less so based on relative project focus. I am not discounting the benefits of collaboration, but most of those benefits can and should continue apart from project governance direction. Participation in Slack communities and email lists is open to everyone, regardless of project focus. Thanks again for the helpful consideration thus far, I look forward to additional replies. Regards, David Handermann [1] https://lists.apache.org/thread/qpff11cxfc4lxm7pxghcnqgn16fc1d3w On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 1:24 PM Gábor Gyimesi <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've been reflecting on this topic over the last two days, and in my > opinion MiNiFi benefits more as a subproject than as a top level > project. I also believe that the overall NiFi ecosystem gains more > value from having both NiFi and MiNiFi developers and users > participate in discussions, even when certain topics don't directly > affect their primary area of focus. > > One of the key advantages of maintaining a single project is improved > communication with the user community. Engaging with users across > shared channels (such as common mailing lists or Slack workspaces) > makes it easier to discuss use cases, provide guidance, and recommend > the best options when both NiFi and MiNiFi developers are involved. > This collaboration helps users better understand which project fits > their needs. Shared communication channels also make it easier to > assess how decisions impact both projects, even when those effects > might not be immediately obvious from one side's perspective. > > NiFi's larger and more established community also contributes to > greater visibility for MiNiFi. Since NiFi's user base is significantly > larger, this can help grow MiNiFi's audience, provided the > subproject's goals are clearly communicated. In this respect, I agree > there's room for improvement. I don't think having a project page > under the NiFi website is a bad idea, but enhancing its UX design, > improving discoverability, and highlighting relevant use cases could > draw more attention to MiNiFi than transitioning it into a TLP. > > There's also the matter of shared features and integration between > NiFi and MiNiFi. One of MiNiFi's core use cases is serving as an edge > data collector that forwards data to NiFi via the Site-to-Site > protocol. Supporting use cases like this is more effective within a > unified project community, where collaboration on integration features > (like updates to the Site-to-Site protocol) is simpler. Similarly, > with the recent introduction of Python processors in NiFi, maintaining > a single project structure would make it easier to develop and support > the Python API for both NiFi and MiNiFi. > > Finally, MiNiFi C++ currently lags behind NiFi in terms of available > features. Keeping both within a single project would streamline the > process of porting useful improvements from NiFi to MiNiFi. Even in > early design and feature discussions, having both NiFi and MiNiFi > developers involved adds value by bringing different perspectives on > use cases and implementation details. > > I know some of these points may not be directly related to project > governance, but I believe they could be unfortunate consequences of > further isolating the projects from one another. All in all, I think > maintaining MiNiFi as a subproject rather than a top-level project > best supports collaboration, interoperability, and consistency across > the broader NiFi ecosystem. > > Regards, > Gabor > > On Wed, 5 Nov 2025 at 18:47, Tony Kurc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > My bias is that the subproject approach has benefits that outweigh the > > benefits of a broken out TLP > > > > 1. I think there is merit in shared governance - it's unrealistic that > > every PMC member knows all parts of a project, and I don't think there are > > any ASF projects where everyone knows everything from a technical > > perspective, and there are components where only a few contribute, or even > > understand. I think the breadth of experience in both technical and > > non-technical gives all the subprojects resilience. We have people who know > > and care about these subcomponents that might not otherwise. > > > > 2. I think the direct presence that David mentions is a bit of an argument > > of a lack of visibility (i.e. MiNiFi gets "outshined"), but I could be > > wrong. That is currently a tacit choice we're making as a community and > > project. We could be making choices to highlight on the website or in other > > communication, but we don't. If lack of presence is an issue, we could > > address in other ways. > > > > 3. I think there is value in shared branding and user trust. At least with > > me, a tight sub project association mitigates risk of fragmenting the > > somewhat joint "story" of NiFi and MiNiFis for users, folks like > > integrators, and maybe even ASF? > > > > 4. I think splitting has significant overhead costs in coordination, such > > as cross-project apis or alignment, amplified by some of the reporting that > > comes along with being a TLP. > > > > What I'm not sure I'm seeing is any community divergence or independence > > that I would expect to see for considering TLP vs PMC. I unsuccessfully > > searched through some of the other projects mailing lists to try to > > understand other peoples' considerations for subproject->TLP decisions. > > > > Tony > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 12:14 PM Joe Witt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I think all that is being suggested here is should we consider having > > > MiNiFi be its own TLP... 5 members in that PMC is enough and I'd bet at > > > least a few of us would also be part of that PMC as well. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 10:08 AM Michael Moser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I still think #2 is an option. It would be up to those 5 or more > > > > committers to determine what to do with it. > > > > > > > > There are more NiFi adjacent projects out there (NyPyApi and NiFiKop to > > > > name a couple) that are maintained as open source but not governed by > > > > the > > > > ASF or NiFi PMC. > > > > > > > > -- Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 11:26 AM Arpad Boda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > 2) is not really an option, it's being contributed to actively by ~5 > > > > > committers. > > > > > > > > > > So the question is deciding between 1) and 3). > > > > > I'm not sure at the moment which I find better, will get back to this > > > > > thread with a longer response. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Arpad > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 5:17 PM Michael Moser <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think there is a "correct" way forward with MiNiFi C++, but > > > > > > I > > > > can > > > > > > think of a few options. > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) Status quo. Keep MiNiFi C++ in Apache NiFi. There will be NiFi > > > > > > committers and PMC members who do not touch MiNiFi C++ and those who > > > do > > > > > not > > > > > > touch NiFi. The risk of harm to the codebases because of this is > > > > > > acceptably low. > > > > > > 2) Jettison the MiNiFi C++ project completely to the point the NiFi > > > PMC > > > > > > itself is no longer responsible for its governance or is involved > > > with > > > > > its > > > > > > maintenance or continued open source status. > > > > > > 3) The NiFi PMC votes to split MiNiFi C++ into an Apache Incubator > > > > > podling > > > > > > and provides mentors. I would worry about getting enough > > > participation > > > > > in > > > > > > the new podling. > > > > > > > > > > > > The biggest issue for me is that MiNiFi C++ has separate issue > > > tracking > > > > > > from NiFi. This makes it essentially a separately run "division" of > > > > the > > > > > > NiFi organization with minimal interaction with other divisions. > > > > > > Its > > > > > > separate git repository, while a very sensical decision, also > > > > contributes > > > > > > to less interaction with the core nifi repository. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I had to vote, as someone who has never used and probably never > > > will > > > > > use > > > > > > MiNiFi C++ because MiNiFi Java meets all my needs, I would choose > > > > > > #2. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2025 at 10:28 PM David Handermann < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
