On 28.05.20 21:30, Julius Volz wrote: > > I therefore call a vote for the following proposal: > > Allow adding exporters to https://prometheus.io/docs/instrumenting/exporters/ > although the devices or applications that they export data for can already be > monitored via SNMP (and thus via the SNMP Exporter). This proposal does not > affect other criteria that we may use in deciding whether to list an exporter > or not.
YES It would obviously be better if those exporter listing decisions would "just work" with best judgement and we didn't need to vote about individual guideline. However, the discussion in https://github.com/prometheus/docs/pull/1640 circled back to the SNMP Exporter argument multiple times. The single person on the one side of the argument explained their concerns, they were considered, but failed to convince. With the room leaning so obviously to the other side, one might ask why that circling back had to happen. The vote can help here to prune at least one branch of the meandering discussion. In particular with the often used reasoning that "that's how we did it before", it's good to know if perhaps "that's not how we want to do it in the future". Having said that, I do believe that we should have a more fundamental discussion about revising "our" criteria of accepting exporter listings. My impression is that the way it is done right now doesn't represent our collective intentions very well. Even worse, I am fairly certain that the process is partially defeating its purpose. In particular, instead of encouraging the community to join efforts, we are causing even more fragmentation. Which is really tragic, given how much time and effort Brian invests in the review work. Kickstarting such a discussion has been on my agenda for a long time, but given how my past attempts to move the needle went, it appeared to be a quite involved effort, for which I'm lacking the capacity. (Others told me similar things, which reminds me of the "capitulation" topic in RFC7282, where people cease to express their point of view because "they don't have the energy to argue against it". Votes, like this particular one, might then just be an attempt to get out of the many branches and loops created by persistently upholding objections that most of the room considers addressed already.) -- Björn Rabenstein [PGP-ID] 0x851C3DA17D748D03 [email] [email protected] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prometheus Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/prometheus-developers/20200529150058.GS2326%40jahnn.
