Hi Robert, > Is my understanding correct that option 1 is out of scope from your perspective, and option 2 is not sufficient for the M0 you have in mind? In other words, you are proposing option 3 as the baseline, with active planning toward option 4?
Yes, that's correct. Happy to hear others' opinions, but Option 4 has been detailed in the proposal document since the very start. I'm happy to wait a few more days for others' opinions, but as of now I don't see any active opposition to the plans as-is and the "lazy consensus" suggested deadline was over 2 weeks ago. I-Ting and I will start implementation in the meantime. Best, Adnan Hemani On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 3:19 AM Robert Stupp <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks Adnan, that helps clarify the shape. > > I think this is the point where broader community input would be useful, > because options 3/4 are a materially different commitment from options 1/2. > > Is my understanding correct that option 1 is out of scope from your > perspective, and option 2 is not sufficient for the M0 you have in mind? In > other words, you are proposing option 3 as the baseline, with active > planning toward option 4? > > Option 3 does not just put a proxy endpoint in Polaris. > It makes Polaris responsible for the OL ingest path: dataset-name > resolution, per-entity authZ over OL assertions, policy for non-Polaris > datasets, trusted-service credentials to downstream systems, request-size > and payload limits, forwarding failure semantics, audit behavior, and > tenant isolation. > > Option 4 then adds a Polaris-local lineage storage/query subsystem. > Even if the first version stores only a reduced projection, Polaris would > take on many responsibilities of an OL backend: persistence semantics, > query semantics, staleness/pruning, auth-filtered reads, backend > compatibility, migrations, limits, and long-term compatibility with OL > event shapes. > At that point, even if intentionally limited, Polaris effectively operates > as an OL backend for the supported subset. > > So before we treat option 3 plus active planning toward option 4 as the M0 > baseline, I think it would be good to hear whether others agree that > Polaris should take on that implementation and maintenance surface for the > first milestone. > > Or whether we should start with a smaller integration point first. > > Robert >
