Dear Oracle, we need to talk about the future of MySQL
Summary
A coalition of influential MySQL users and developers has published an open letter inviting Oracle to join plans for a vendor-neutral, nonprofit foundation to guide MySQL’s future. The initiative — backed by roughly 100 signatories at the time of writing — aims to tackle perceived problems under Oracle’s stewardship: falling popularity versus PostgreSQL, opaque development processes, public tracking of security bugs without clear verification, difficulty for community contributions, a lack of modern features (such as vector search), and an ageing developer base.
The group, represented by figures including Vadim Tkachenko and Peter Zaitsev, has given Oracle until the end of March to engage. If Oracle does not signal willingness to participate, organisers may proceed without the company. Oracle has recently promised a “new era” for MySQL and community engagement, but the community remains sceptical: a recent MySQL community manager left, leadership vacancies persist, and commit activity has dropped.
Key Points
- Around 100 users and developers have signed an open letter proposing an independent MySQL foundation.
- Motivation: declining market share, limited transparency from Oracle, and barriers to community contribution.
- Security reporting and visibility are cited as concerns — users find it hard to verify whether known bugs affect them.
- The group wants an independent, vendor-neutral body to hold Oracle accountable and provide a shared home for the ecosystem.
- Organisers have set a deadline (end of March) for Oracle to respond; they may move forward without Oracle if it stays silent.
- Oracle recently pledged a renewed approach to community engagement, but departures and low commit activity have fuelled distrust.
- Broader context: forks (MariaDB), competition from PostgreSQL, and the need for modern DB features (e.g., vector search for AI) are driving urgency.
Why should I read this?
If you run, build on, or depend on MySQL, this matters — big time. The community’s plan could reshape how MySQL is governed, who gets a say in features and security, and whether the project stays relevant against PostgreSQL and newer databases. In short: it could change how your apps get patched, improved and supported. Read it to know whether your database’s future will be led by a single vendor or a wider community.
Context and Relevance
The proposal reflects wider trends in open-source governance: organisations want vendor-neutral stewardship to ensure transparency, fairness and long-term viability. MySQL’s challenges — reduced contributor activity, concerns about proprietary feature prioritisation (for example, enterprise-only additions and services like HeatWave), and the lack of modern capabilities such as vector search — mirror issues other legacy projects face when corporate priorities shift.
For enterprises, a foundation could mean clearer roadmaps, better security accountability, and more opportunities for third-party vendors. For developers and students, it could make contributing easier and attract new talent. Whether Oracle engages will determine if the foundation becomes a partnership or an independent fallback for the ecosystem.