David, I was thinking about the lack of votes too.. I didn't attribute it to lack of knowledge, I attributed it a bit to the bystander effect more than anything. Reviewing is not *all *technical; focusing on the build docs, the licensing due diligence, and so on is pretty universal. I think there is some merit to you saying a subproject has a higher likelihood of causing diffusion of responsibilities, but that hurts my soul a bit (especially biting as a non-voter on that release).
I appreciate your thoughts even if they cause me to be disappointed in myself. Since we both recognize this pattern, are we really discussing measures to counteract this diffusion or compel greater individual ownership (PMC)? Thanks, Tony On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 3:43 PM David Handermann <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
