A groundswell of discontent from prominent figures across the database industry has culminated in a direct challenge to Oracle Corporation’s stewardship of MySQL, one of the world’s most ubiquitous open-source databases. More than 248 database administrators, architects, and executives have signed an open letter demanding that Oracle transition control of the project to an independent, non-profit foundation. This unified call to action is driven by a profound and growing concern that under its current governance model, MySQL has fallen into a state of developmental stagnation, characterized by an opaque roadmap and a critical failure to adapt to the burgeoning demands of the AI era. The signatories, who represent major MySQL fork providers like Percona and MariaDB as well as technology giants such as Zoho and DigitalOcean, argue that this change is not merely desirable but essential for securing the database’s future relevance and vitality in an increasingly competitive landscape.
The Core of the Conflict
Stagnation and Missed Opportunities
A central pillar of the community’s argument against Oracle’s current management is the perception of a stalled and opaque development process that has left the broader ecosystem in a state of uncertainty. Proponents of the open letter contend that crucial updates to the MySQL core codebase are being developed “privately,” with infrequent releases that lack the transparency expected of a major open-source project. This closed-door approach has effectively shrouded the project’s long-term technical roadmap in mystery, preventing community members and businesses that rely on MySQL from planning for the future with any degree of confidence. This methodology stands in stark contrast to the more open, collaborative, and predictable development cycles of competing open-source databases, which actively solicit and integrate community feedback. The lack of a clear, public-facing direction under Oracle is seen not just as a procedural issue but as a fundamental handicap that stifles innovation and discourages broader community participation, fostering an environment of inertia rather than progress.
This perceived developmental lethargy has created a significant and widening feature gap, particularly as the technology sector rapidly pivots toward workloads driven by artificial intelligence. The signatories of the letter argue with increasing urgency that MySQL is critically lagging in its support for functionalities that have become indispensable for modern AI applications. While competitors, including PostgreSQL and even Oracle’s own proprietary enterprise databases, have moved swiftly to integrate vector storage, native machine learning capabilities, and other AI-centric tools, the core open-source MySQL project has remained notably behind. This failure to adapt is having tangible consequences, as developers and enterprises find themselves forced to look elsewhere for database solutions that can consolidate and serve data for their AI systems. This trend is reflected in market data, such as a 2025 Stack Overflow survey showing PostgreSQL surpassing MySQL in both usage and popularity, underscoring a clear migration of developer preference toward platforms that are better aligned with the industry’s future.
A Fading Community and Fragmented Ecosystem
The health of an open-source project is often measured by the vibrancy of its community, and by this metric, MySQL shows troubling signs of decline under its current stewardship. Quantitative data presented by project proponents reveals a stark and sustained drop in contributor engagement, a key indicator of a project’s vitality. According to figures compiled by Percona, the number of active contributors to the MySQL codebase plummeted from 135 in late 2017 to approximately 75 by the third quarter of 2025. This downturn in human capital is mirrored by a dramatic reduction in development activity, with the annual number of code commits falling from a high of over 22,000 in 2010 to just 4,730 in 2024. These concerning statistics are compounded by internal moves at Oracle, including recent layoffs within its MySQL division and the high-profile departure of its community manager to the rival MariaDB Foundation. These events signal to many observers a potential de-emphasis on Oracle’s part regarding community investment and collaboration for the open-source version of the project.
In the absence of centralized innovation within the core MySQL project, the ecosystem has not become entirely stagnant but has instead grown fragmented, creating a new set of complex challenges for users. As enterprises become increasingly concerned about the inertia of the main project, many have turned to MySQL forks and specialized cloud services for the new features they require. However, according to Vadim Tkachenko, a co-founder of Percona and one of the letter’s authors, this decentralization has led to a splintered landscape where different versions of MySQL introduce unique and often incompatible extensions. This fragmentation creates significant confusion and erects “major barriers for adoption and migrations,” as businesses struggle to navigate a complex web of proprietary features. This situation creates a paradox where the search for innovation outside the core project leads to new forms of vendor lock-in, undermining one of the fundamental promises of open-source software and complicating the long-term strategic decisions of organizations that have built their infrastructure on the MySQL platform.
A Proposed Path Forward and Expert Caution
The Foundation Model Solution
In response to the growing challenges of stagnation and fragmentation, the open letter outlines a clear and structured proposal: to place the MySQL project under the governance of a neutral, non-profit foundation. This proposed model aims to create a more democratic and transparent framework for the database’s future development. The foundation would be managed by a technical steering committee composed of a diverse group of stakeholders, ensuring that no single entity could dominate its direction. This committee would include representation from Oracle, key fork providers like Percona and MariaDB, major cloud vendors that rely heavily on MySQL, and members of the broader contributor community. The primary responsibility of this governing body would be to transparently manage the project’s technical roadmap, oversee the release governance process, and establish clear guidelines for contributor access. By centralizing decision-making within a collaborative and representative structure, the foundation model seeks to unify the fractured ecosystem, reignite innovation in the core project, and restore trust among its global user base.
A critical and carefully considered element of this proposal is its explicit protection of Oracle’s existing commercial interests tied to the MySQL brand. The signatories have designed the foundation model not to oust Oracle but to redefine its role within a more collaborative ecosystem. Under the proposed structure, Oracle would retain full ownership of its MySQL trademarks, ensuring its brand identity remains secure. Furthermore, the company would continue to have the unimpeded right to develop, market, and sell its commercial MySQL offerings, including its enterprise editions and associated support services. The goal is not to diminish Oracle’s business but to transition its position from that of a sole, opaque steward to that of a key and influential stakeholder within a transparent, community-driven governance structure. This pragmatic approach acknowledges Oracle’s significant investments and commercial success while arguing that the long-term health of the open-source project, and by extension the entire ecosystem, requires a more inclusive and balanced model of leadership.
Analyst Skepticism and the PostgreSQL Comparison
While the foundation model is viewed by its proponents as a viable and constructive path forward, some industry analysts have expressed reservations, suggesting that the proposal may not be a panacea for the project’s underlying issues. Stephanie Walter of HyperFRAME Research points out that the plan, while well-intentioned, might not “fully resolve the core power dynamics” that currently exist. If Oracle retains ultimate control over the MySQL trademark and holds the final authority on the release pipeline, it could continue to wield significant influence, potentially limiting the foundation’s autonomy and effectiveness. Even with a diverse steering committee, the entity holding the core intellectual property and final say on official releases could still steer the project in a direction that primarily serves its own corporate interests. Walter concedes that such a model could improve day-to-day coordination and streamline the contribution process, but cautions that it may fall short of the fundamental shift in governance that many in the community are hoping for.
The conversation around MySQL’s future governance is inevitably shaped by comparisons to its chief open-source rival, PostgreSQL, whose governance model stands in stark contrast. Walter highlights that PostgreSQL operates as a fully autonomous, community-led project, free from the control of any single corporate entity. Its decentralized and trust-based governance structure, managed by a core team of long-standing, respected contributors, has played a “meaningful role” in its sustained growth, consistent innovation, and high level of adoption in demanding enterprise environments. This comparison implies that the trust and dynamism enjoyed by the PostgreSQL community may be difficult to replicate under any model where ultimate control remains concentrated within a single corporation. For MySQL to truly revitalize itself and effectively compete, analysts suggest that it may require a more profound and fundamental shift in power dynamics, one that more closely mirrors the successful, fully independent community-driven model of its primary competitor.
The Community’s Stance on a New Era
The open letter and the unified voice of its signatories represented a pivotal moment for the MySQL ecosystem. It was a clear articulation of the community’s belief that the database had reached a crossroads, where its future relevance hinged on a fundamental change in governance. The proposed foundation model was presented not as an attack on Oracle but as a carefully constructed plan to restore transparent governance, stimulate innovation within the core project, and heal a fragmented community. While analysts rightly pointed out that true revitalization might require a more radical departure from corporate control, akin to the model that had propelled its chief rival, the community had decisively made its case. The future direction of one of the world’s most widely used open-source databases was placed squarely in the hands of its corporate steward, awaiting a response that would shape the technological landscape for years to come.
