I suspect this is partially because internal efforts and agendas take priority over open source community at this point.

For example, I created an issue requesting a flamegraph visualization in grafana[1] and now it makes sense that they didn't initially respond because they were building it internally in secret and didn't want to spoil the big reveal (when they did respond they did mention that it was a secret).

They're also less incentivized now to tend to issues and PRs that help others outside of their ecosystem (i.e. competing logs, metrics, tracing, profiling, etc products).

[1] https://github.com/grafana/grafana/issues/53723

>Sorry for this being a bit secret until now but we tried to quickly build and iterate something usable. There isn't much documentation for it as it is behind feature flag it's not a GA feature but hope that will come soon.

Secrets kinda conflict with the whole Open part of OSS.

No it doesn’t. Open community doesn’t have to be open source. Open source doesn’t have to have an open community.

By the OSI definition, most of android is in fact open source. However, much of it is thrown over the wall after a release. Don’t conflate the two.

>No it doesn’t. Open community doesn’t have to be open source. Open source doesn’t have to have an open community.

That's in direct contract with Grafana's own messaging. The following is from their OSS marketing page.

>Open Source is at the heart of what we do at Grafana Labs. We believe building software in the open, with thriving communities, helps leave the world a little better than we found it. https://grafana.com/oss/

My reply was replying to:

    Secrets kinda conflict with the whole Open part of OSS.

Please note that the open source definition has no mention of community:

https://opensource.org/osd

As I said, please stop conflating open source software with open communities. They’re part of a thriving and healthy project, but are not the same thing.

While they are open-source projects, I bet their software is still driven by customer feedback. I wouldn't put it past them to prioritize paying customer requests which takes time away from implementing features, doing bugfixes or code review.

I don't think it's fair to say that paying customer feedback is prioritised at the expense of the open-source community.

The thing with the core Grafana product being open source is that there's not that much dissimilarity between paying/enterprise Grafana users, and open-source users. Feedback from one set will almost always work in favor for the other.

If an open source community is sufficient, it should implement pull requests itself while sufficient paid developers continue to contribute after earning enough to provide for themselves by working on customer feedback.

I think it's better to look at something like https://github.com/grafana/grafana/pulse/monthly. You can see there were 1.1K pull requests and 435 issues closed in a month.

Also it's a bit hard to judge what the number of open issues means right now, because we use github issues also to track internal tasks (for better visibility). So as we have more engineers and more users there will inevitably be more open issues/PRs at any given moment.

1.1K pull requests but only 760 commits to the main branch, ~300 of which are made by dependency bots. I'm not saying Grafana isn't doing anything. Just the numbers you provided are a bit misleading in representing their work.