Vendor Neutrality

Why It Matters and How Podlings Can Practice It

What Is Vendor Neutrality?

Vendor neutrality means that Apache projects are not controlled by any single company, sponsor, or contributor. While companies and their employees often make significant contributions, all decisions must be made openly by the project's community.

At the ASF, this principle is rooted in Community over Code: a diverse, balanced community is more valuable than any single technical feature or corporate investment. Vendor neutrality supports the core ASF principles of:

Meritocracy: influence is earned by contribution, not employment.
Consensus: decisions reflect the collective voice, not just one company’s priorities.
Transparency: all discussions and decisions are open and visible to the entire community.

Why It Matters

Sustainability: Companies may change direction, reduce funding, or exit a market. A community-driven project can continue regardless.
Trust: Users and contributors are more willing to join a project that is not driven by a single vendor’s priorities.
Diversity: Broader participation ensures that priorities reflect more than one customer base or product roadmap.
Legal and brand protection: Independence avoids conflicts where company branding or marketing could blur the line between an Apache project and a corporate product.
Graduation readiness: The Incubator PMC and ASF Board expect podlings to show independence and balanced governance before graduating.

Historical Context

Many successful Apache projects began as single-vendor or vendor-led efforts. What allowed them to thrive in the long term was their willingness to open up, welcome outside contributors, and hand over control to the community. This path is expected for podlings: neutrality is a journey, not an instant requirement.

Single-Vendor Projects: Risk vs. Problem

A podling may start as a single vendor; this is common and can be a healthy way to bootstrap a project.

This is not an immediate problem, as long as the community is open to others and actively works to bring in new contributors.
It becomes a risk if:
- All committers and PPMC members are tied to a single employer.
- Decisions are made internally and only rubber-stamped on mailing lists.
- External contributors often struggle to gain traction.

The key measure is the trajectory: a podling is expected to show progress toward independence, with growing participation from multiple organizations and individuals over time. Sustained single-vendor control is a blocker for graduation.

Common Pitfalls

Single-vendor dominance without a plan to diversify.
Chair and majority from the same employer, leading to governance concerns.
Private decision-making via internal tools or meetings instead of ASF mailing lists.
Brand confusion occurs when a company markets an ASF project's product as its own product.
Multiple vendors, but one driving all decisions, creating the appearance of dominance even without a numerical majority.

Signs of Healthy Neutrality

Contributors from different organizations are taking on visible roles such as release managers or PPMC members.
Independent individuals actively participate in discussions and receive recognition based on merit.
Community-driven roadmaps that include features proposed outside the dominant vendor.
Mailing list discussions showing genuine debate and consensus-building across affiliations.

Examples in Practice

Good Practice

A contributor from a different company proposes a feature. The community engages on the mailing list, helps refine the design, and later nominates that contributor for committership.
The PPMC rotates release managers so that no single company controls releases.
Companies encourage employees to collaborate publicly rather than making decisions internally beforehand.

Bad Practice

Roadmaps are aligned with a company’s product release cycle, while community proposals are sidelined.
All major decisions are drafted in the company's Slack channels and then “announced” on the mailing list.
Marketing materials present the Apache project's product as if it were a vendor’s product.

Mentors' Role

Mentors play a critical part in guiding podlings toward neutrality. They should:

Watch for signs of single vendor dominance and raise concerns early.
Encourage podlings to rotate roles such as release manager or PPMC chair nominations.
Remind communities that all substantive decisions must be made on ASF lists, not in private company channels.
Help identify and invite outside contributors, lowering barriers to entry.
Provide feedback to the IPMC when a podling shows progress, or risks stagnation, on neutrality.

Practicing Vendor Neutrality

Welcome contributors from multiple organizations and individuals.
Hold all decisions and discussions on ASF mailing lists.
Be open about employer affiliations when nominating committers or voting.
Rotate responsibilities to prevent concentration of influence.
Use Apache project names consistently; avoid linking the project's product identity to a vendor.
Mentor and support contributors outside the dominant vendor to take on committer and PPMC roles.

Cultural Sensitivity

In some regions, contributors may feel pressure to prioritize their employer’s direction. Podlings should encourage people to share their own views independently, and reassure them that the ASF values individual merit and voice over company alignment. Projects should also remember that contributors participate for different reasons: some as part of their job, while others join in their free time, and both perspectives are essential.

Neutrality also helps projects transcend regional or local dominance: relying too heavily participants on one country, region, or cultural context can make a project appear insular. Encouraging global participation strengthens diversity, reduces risks tied to local market shifts, and ensures that the project reflects the needs of a broader user base.

Conflict Prevention and Resolution

Vendor dominance is a common source of tension, as one company may want to steer the project in a direction that others resist. Neutrality helps avoid this by requiring open consensus: decisions are made on-list, with all voices heard, rather than dictated by corporate priorities.

Brand Independence

The ASF has clear brand and trademark policies: an Apache product must never be presented as a company’s product. Vendor neutrality reinforces this rule by ensuring that Apache identity stays distinct, protecting both the ASF and contributors from legal or reputational risks.

What Podlings Should Aim For

Balanced PPMC: No single employer holds a majority of members.
Independent perception: External users see the project as an Apache community, not a vendor asset.
Community-driven roadmap: Releases and priorities set by mailing list consensus, not corporate deadlines.
Healthy governance: Leadership roles are distributed across different employers and independent contributors.

Encouragement to Companies

Companies also benefit from vendor neutrality. Shared ownership fosters trust with users, distributes the maintenance burden, and ensures the project's survival even if business priorities shift. Corporate contributors who support neutral governance build stronger reputations and ecosystems around their products and services.

Encouragement to Individuals

Independent contributors are especially valued because they demonstrate that the project is not dependent on one company’s resources. Podlings should make a point of welcoming and mentoring unaffiliated individuals, ensuring they have equal opportunity to shape the project.

Board and Incubator Expectations

When reviewing podlings for graduation, the Incubator PMC and the ASF Board look for evidence of vendor neutrality. Key questions include:

Does the PPMC show diversity across employers?
Are decisions visibly made on mailing lists?
Are the project and its product's identity distinct from any company’s product?

Graduation Red Flags

The following issues often delay or block graduation:

A single employer dominates PPMC membership after a year or more in incubation.
No independent committers or contributors stepping into leadership roles.
Roadmaps or release cycles tied to a corporate product schedule.
Branding confusion where the project's product is presented as part of a vendor’s product line.

Consequences of Ignoring Neutrality

Podlings that do not make progress toward neutrality face serious risks:

Delayed graduation: the IPMC may require extended incubation until diversity improves.
Board pushback: the ASF Board may reject graduation resolutions that show single-vendor control.
Retirement: In rare cases, projects that remain vendor-dominated and do not attract a community may be retired from the Incubator rather than graduating.

Key Takeaway

Vendor neutrality does not mean excluding companies. It means ensuring that no one company dominates. A podling may start with strong involvement from a single vendor, but over time, it must demonstrate openness and diversity. The strength of an Apache project stems from its independence, diversity, and community-led nature, enabling it to thrive long after any single vendor’s involvement.

Page tree