We are joined by Vernon Yai, a data protection and governance expert with a sharp focus on the complex world of enterprise data technology and the politics of the open-source market. His insights are particularly relevant today as we delve into the growing unrest within the MySQL community, where a movement is underway to reshape the future of one of the world’s most popular databases. This conversation will explore the deep-seated frustrations driving the call for a new governance model, the competitive pressures in an AI-driven era, and the practical consequences of a shrinking contributor base. We’ll also examine the double-edged sword of database forks, the proposed foundation model as a potential solution, and the skepticism surrounding its ability to truly shift the balance of power away from Oracle.
An open letter signed by DBAs, architects, and engineers is calling for a new governance model for MySQL. What specific frustrations are driving this movement, and what are the immediate risks for the database’s market share if the current development model is maintained?
The frustration you’re seeing is a direct result of a development process that feels opaque and closed off. When the community perceives updates as “private” and sparse, a deep sense of unease sets in. This isn’t just about a slow release cycle; it’s about a lack of transparency in the roadmap at a time when the entire data ecosystem is accelerating due to AI. The immediate risk is a continued and potentially irreversible loss of market share. We are already witnessing developers and enterprises actively routing around MySQL. They aren’t just complaining; they are migrating to platforms like PostgreSQL, which they see as more responsive and transparent. With the letter already gathering over 248 signatures from key figures, it’s clear the concern has reached a critical boiling point.
With demand surging for AI-driven workloads, concerns have emerged about MySQL’s private updates and lack of modern features. How does this perceived stagnation impact enterprises, and what specific capabilities are developers now finding in alternatives like PostgreSQL?
The impact is profound because the database layer has fundamentally evolved into a critical dependency for any modern AI system. Stagnation means enterprises are trying to build futuristic applications on a foundation that isn’t keeping pace. The core MySQL project is seen as lacking features that are now considered table stakes for handling the complex data operations required by AI. These aren’t fringe capabilities; they are standard in most modern databases, including, ironically, Oracle’s own enterprise offerings. As a result, developers are drawn to alternatives like PostgreSQL, where a community-led governance model has fostered continuous innovation and built trust. They find a more robust and predictable platform there, one that feels better suited for long-term, AI-focused development.
The number of active contributors to MySQL has reportedly fallen significantly since 2017, with a corresponding drop in code commits. What are the root causes of this decline in community engagement, and what are the tangible consequences for the database’s stability and innovation?
A drop in active contributors from 135 in late 2017 to around 75 is a massive red flag. When you couple that with a collapse in code commits—from over 22,360 in 2010 to just 4,730 in 2024—it paints a picture of a community in crisis. The root cause is a breakdown of trust in the governance model. When contributors feel their efforts aren’t valued or that the project’s direction is dictated behind closed doors, they disengage and take their talent elsewhere. The tangible consequences are a slower pace of innovation, fewer bugs being caught and fixed, and a general decline in the software’s resilience. This is compounded by events like recent layoffs at Oracle’s MySQL division, which only serves to further erode confidence and accelerate the brain drain from the core project.
While forks from providers like Percona and MariaDB offer innovation, they can also lead to fragmentation and migration challenges. Could you walk us through the practical difficulties this creates for development teams and how a foundation model might address this core compatibility issue?
The innovation happening in forks is a double-edged sword. While it provides enterprises with needed features, it creates a messy, fragmented ecosystem. For a development team, this is a nightmare. You might adopt a feature from one fork only to find it’s incompatible with the core upstream project or another fork you need to integrate with. This creates significant barriers to adoption and makes migrations incredibly difficult, effectively creating new forms of vendor lock-in. A foundation model would directly address this by creating a neutral ground for governance. With a technical steering committee representing Oracle, the fork providers, and the community, it could standardize the contribution process and create a unified, transparent roadmap. This would ensure that innovations are integrated back into the core, benefiting everyone and preventing the ecosystem from fracturing further.
The proposal for a new foundation suggests a technical steering committee representing Oracle, cloud vendors, and the community. How would this structure practically improve roadmap transparency, and what would Oracle’s day-to-day role look like to ensure its commercial interests are protected?
Practically, this structure would move critical conversations about the roadmap out from behind Oracle’s corporate walls and into a public forum. The technical steering committee would become the central body for planning, debating, and finalizing the technical direction of the database. This immediately gives vendors and enterprises more confidence because they can see and influence the long-term plan. In this model, Oracle’s day-to-day role would shift from sole controller to a powerful, guiding participant. It would retain its trademarks and continue developing its commercial MySQL offerings, but its influence on the open-source project would be exercised through its seat on the committee alongside other key stakeholders. This protects its commercial interests while restoring the collaborative spirit essential for a healthy open-source project.
Some analysts are skeptical that a foundation would resolve power dynamics if Oracle retains the MySQL trademark and release pipeline. What are the key challenges in this proposed model, and how does it contrast with the governance that has helped PostgreSQL gain popularity?
The skepticism is warranted because the core power dynamic could remain unchanged. If Oracle ultimately controls the trademark and the final release pipeline, the foundation’s steering committee might only have advisory power, not true authority. The key challenge is ensuring the foundation has genuine control over the project’s technical destiny. This model stands in stark contrast to PostgreSQL’s autonomous, community-led governance. PostgreSQL’s success is built on a foundation of trust where no single corporate entity holds that much power. That very structure is what has sustained contributor engagement and accelerated its adoption, helping it surpass MySQL in recent popularity and usage surveys. Without a real transfer of control, a MySQL foundation might only be a cosmetic change.
What is your forecast for MySQL?
My forecast is that MySQL is at a critical crossroads, and its future will be determined in the very near term. If Oracle maintains the status quo, the current trajectory of declining community engagement and market share erosion, particularly to PostgreSQL, will undoubtedly continue and likely accelerate. The database will become increasingly fragmented by forks, making it a less attractive option for new, large-scale projects, especially in the AI space. However, if Oracle embraces the call for a foundation model and genuinely cedes some control to a neutral body, there is a strong possibility of a renaissance. Such a move could reignite community passion, unify the fragmented ecosystem, and restore the trust needed to make MySQL a competitive force for the next decade. The decision ultimately rests with Oracle.
