potiuk commented on PR #59558: URL: https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/59558#issuecomment-3775220401
> We discussed a potential donation from this provider with the [Anyscale team](https://www.anyscale.com/) last Friday, but they don’t have the capacity to take this on right now. Given that [PyTorch has recently adopted Ray](https://pytorch.org/blog/pytorch-foundation-welcomes-ray-to-deliver-a-unified-open-source-ai-compute-stack/), one possible next step could be reaching out to the PyTorch Foundation to see whether they are interested in supporting this workstream as well. Thanks @tatiana -> this is good idea, what I would propose is to follow up with the current "extensions" to the Google Provider, and maybe - as part of AIP-95 implementation we could start building the list of providers that people would like to see in Airflow, and generally ask if there are those who would like to lead introduction of those - in this case, that someone who would like to see a need for Ray provider, could take on the task on reaching out and finding whether PyTorch foundation would be interested in being a steward and make the initial effort to create such a provider. I think we should gravitate towards the solution that we - as maintainers - should not do it, but people want to have it in Airflow should take the leadership on it - and we should empower and enable such people to build the "stewardship" around such provider. In this case - if @raphaelauv would like to see it, we should likely have a blueprint on how to approach it and what needs to be done as part of such "leadership". And anyone of course could be such leader - it does not have to be a PMC member, or even the actual steward - it could be someone who wil encourage and convince the stwards to spend some time on it and commit to maintenance. I think the spirit of AIP-95 is such that we should do a lot to make it easy to accept such providers, and do a lot to setup a framework around it, the actual part of a) creating the provider, b) building a stewardship around it should be led by those who want such providers to be part of Airlfow, and contribute a bit of their leadership and energy to make it happen. This would also make this whole process much more scalable and long-term maintainable. @vikramkoka @kaxil - as those where part of this -> would you agree that seems like a good way to frame it? @raphaelauv -> would you be willing to take it on and try to be one of the first who try it (we also need to get some first attempts of "finding out" how to do it to learn what is needed, so I guess more maintainer's help will be needed here and I am happy to support anyone who will take on such a task. Also I would see @VladaZakharova and her team to be participating there in finding good ways how to do proper coupling with such a provider when it's going to appear - and possibly @tatiana and her team could help by sharing their learning (or even code) with whoever who will agree to be the steward - at least initially. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
