Hi Dave, Thanks for the feedback, replies inline.
On Sat, Feb 3, 2024 at 11:23 AM Dave Fisher <w...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi - > > What? A cascade of agreement without questions? Seems like this has been > discussed elsewhere? > No, Dave, there was no "elsewhere" discussion. Because 12 people agree to the proposal, you're now questioning their intentions. Based on *your* assumptions, it would either be that: 1. Everyone acting in bad faith 2. No one is able to understand the implications of this proposal Have you considered the eventuality that they actually agree with the proposal and do not share your point of view? I have concerns since with this PIP we are making changes to support a > third party library. > I think you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting multiple things here. This is not "supporting" a 3rd party library, this is "using" a 3rd party library to provide additional features, in the same way in which we are doing with many libraries, eg: we're using Netty for networking, Jackson for JSON, RocksDB and ETCd for metadata support and *many* others. You can find the precise list here: https://github.com/apache/pulsar/blob/master/distribution/server/src/assemble/LICENSE.bin.txt#L243 (or in the LICENSE file Can you explain how this would be *any* different here? > 1. Have people read the PIP text? I see some typos which could be fixed. > Simple things nothing objectionable. > Other people have provided more constructive feedback by correcting the typos in the PR on GitHub. To me it seems like a better approach. > 2. This would be a commitment by the Pulsar PMC to support third party > code. What commitment is there by StreamNative to keep the two Oxia > repositories open source? Relevant because I’ve heard that some > StreamNative protocol handlers have been archived. I know it’s not > completely analogous, but if we are making changes to Pulsar then an > explicit commitment is best. Breaking this down in a few parts, because it sounds like a big ball of FUD to me. > This would be a commitment by the Pulsar PMC to support third party code. What commitment is there by StreamNative to keep the two Oxia repositories open source? StreamNative is already using Oxia in its Cloud Services. There are no problems in doing that, though it wouldn't benefit the Pulsar community as a whole if Apache Pulsar distribution wouldn't be able to use Oxia out of the box. This project has been open-sourced for that very reason. Are you implying that Oxia is not "open-source" enough? (note: the code is available with Apache License V2). Are you asking for extra "guarantees" and "explicit commitment" for every dependency, or you're only doing it on certain occasions? As I mentioned on multiple occasions and public talks, the plan for Oxia has always been to build a community around the project and to find a home in a software foundation. > Relevant because I’ve heard that some StreamNative protocol handlers have been archived. You're omitting the (quite important) point that these protocol handlers are *still* open source. The repository and the source code are still there available to anyone. Also, you're omitting that you're talking about the component that *your* employer has been forking and modifying in a bit of a shady way, without contributing back. Of course, in a legal way, though not a very nice way to behave in an OSS community. Thanks, Matteo
