[policy] Impact on contributed projects and its maintainers

Adding one more related issue.

What impact will this have on governance, funding and other aspects of contrib maintenance? Will this result in different types of contrib, the official ones that are part of Drupal CMS and the others?

Thank you, berdir, for opening this issue. I share some of your concerns. I think it's an open secret that Gin, for example, has been struggling to find new project funding and has lost more funding than it has gained in recent times. It seems that part of Drupal CMS is well funded and contributed to and some companies are even investing full time positions in parts of Drupal CMS (which is great BTW!) while other parts are only worked on in spare time. So there seems to be a gap between the different parts which could create a risk.

What impact will this have on governance, funding and other aspects of contrib maintenance? Will this result in different types of contrib, the official ones that are part of Drupal CMS and the others?

The honest answer is we just don't know yet. It's a really complicated issue without an easy solution. But certainly something we have thought about and talked about, and are conscious of.

What if the product managers of Drupal CMS want a Redirect feature that I'm not willing to maintain? What if I add a feature to Pathauto that conflicts with the strategy of Drupal CMS?

The easy answer from me is: it's your module, you can do what you want! Of course, we hope that we can align with maintainers, and I don't expect there to be many cases where there is a direct conflict. But it might happen. Maybe I am reading into it a bit, but it feels like an unspoken part of this question is, "Will there be pressure from the Drupal CMS team to do something I'm uncomfortable with?" This isn't an official policy or anything but for my part the answer is "No". There are many ways to work around disagreements, some of which are outlined in #3488829-8: [policy] Patching dependencies → . I would think existing governance on this is sufficient, unless there is a worry that efforts would be made to intervene/overrule a maintainer and commit something against their wishes?

So I guess it's more useful to discuss what is the best way to document some answers that would relieve your concerns? I'm not really sure how we could write a policy that is generic but also useful. If you have thoughts on it, or examples of principles that would be a good starting point, I would like to hear them.

I didn't mean to postpone this, sorry! Too many issues open I guess.