On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 1:17 PM Jonathan Ellis <jbel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 2:38 PM Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Agreed that the main problem is about discovering the existing pre-built > > Pulsar connectors. I don't think the PMC should involve hosting and > > managing external connectors because it will put the PMC in the situation > > in handling licensing issues that I think we should avoid. > > > > I totally agree that the PMC shouldn't get tied up in licensing discussions > for third party connectors, but I don't see how that's an issue if we're > talking about a repository with descriptions and URLs -- no code, no > binaries. Am I missing something? > PMC has been treated as an authority of the project and trusted by most of the people. If it is managed by the PMC, PMC is responsible for verifying the links, whether the links point to any malformed binaries and their software licenses. For example, if a Pulsar user goes to the Pulsar website and downloads a malformed binary, who is going to be responsible for that? The PMC, the ASF, or the owner of the binary? IMO, it is too risky to manage. As the PMC, we can make recommendations but I would avoid getting into the trouble of managing external binaries even via links. > > > > All the ASF accepted connectors are already in the main Pulsar repo. Even > > they are moved to the pulsar-connectors repo. They are managed and > released > > as part of the Pulsar release. > > > > Right, there's no problem here. Where there is an opportunity to improve > is discoverability for third party connectors that the PMC does *not* want > to bring in and maintain officially. > See comments above.
