With respect to the thresholds, that's exactly the intent. As we measure and publish, we will be able to determine the right thresholds.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 4:24 PM Jarek Potiuk <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no more questions. I know the numbers will not be correct at the > beginning and we will have to adjust it, but I think before we try, we > won't know - so we have to start with something. A lot of decisions are > eventually at the discretion of the PMC - and I think once we automate a > lot of those dashboard, stats etc. we will gradually learn what makes > sense as thresholds to look at. > > On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 10:05 PM Vikram Koka via dev < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Oh, and for those who may be wondering how the dashboard metrics of >> provider activity could potentially work, there is an early draft of an >> activity tracker is on the Airflow 3.x wiki page >> <https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Airflow+3.x> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 12:26 PM Vikram Koka <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Dear Airflowers, >> > >> > Following up the action item from the discussion in the dev call last >> > week, I updated the AIP (Airflow Improvement Proposal) for the >> > updated provider governance process. >> > >> > The summary of changes are: >> > 1. Introduction of a "Mature" stage for Providers in addition to the >> > proposed "Incubation", "Production", and "Attic / Deprecation" to >> account >> > for those integrations which are stable and therefore don't need to have >> > additional activity on a monthly basis. >> > >> > 2. Deferred to future possibilities, the idea of splitting the Provider >> > repo from the existing mono-repo, and also changing the release >> > distribution policy. In other words, we will no longer be splitting the >> > provider repos from the existing mono-repo. >> > >> > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/AIRFLOW/Provider+lifecycle+update+proposal >> > >> > I deliberately didn't move the existing sections, so that I could >> preserve >> > the comments in the discussion. >> > >> > Please review this updated version of the document. >> > If there are no further concerns, I plan to bring this up for a vote >> next >> > week. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Vikram >> > -- >> > >> > Vikram Koka >> > Chief Strategy Officer >> > Email: [email protected] >> > >> > >> > <https://www.astronomer.io/> >> > >> >
