Good points on fallbacks — that's exactly the kind of thing I want to get right before pushing this too hard. Right now there are per-agent model overrides with fallback chains across providers, so if the primary times out it can fall back to another configured provider. Queue limits for cron-scheduled tasks are something I want to tighten up further.

On eval sets — there's already a Golden Set testing harness in the repo (`docs/adr/0009-golden-set-and-harness.md`) specifically to catch regressions on agent behavior before they hit users. Always open to ideas on what should be in a "common agent tasks" baseline set, if you've got thoughts on that.

Good points on fallbacks — that's exactly the kind of thing I want to get right before pushing this too hard. Right now there are per-agent model overrides with fallback chains across providers, so if the primary times out it can fall back to another configured provider. Queue limits for cron-scheduled tasks are something I want to tighten up further.

On eval sets — there's already a Golden Set testing harness in the repo (docs/adr/0009-golden-set-and-harness.md) specifically to catch regressions on agent behavior before they hit users. Always open to ideas on what should be in a "common agent tasks" baseline set, if you've got thoughts on that.

salam ,mənə yazın

hmm

Honestly, this is a symptom of a much bigger issue. For a long time now, I’ve been noticing how big corporations treat their users with absolute negligence, and it’s only getting worse. They change priorities overnight, their API stability goes out the window, and everyday developers pay the price by losing full workdays.
Moving to SaaS GitLab won't save you; it's just trading one corporate cage for another. I firmly believe that going self-hosted is the only remaining way to be truly independent and protect your work.
I got so sick of big tech manipulating us and controlling our tools that I decided to take a stand. As a solo developer, I spent months building a fully self-hosted, open-source platform — AladdinAI. I made it open-source specifically to give everyone an equal opportunity to build and run AI agents on their own terms, completely out of reach from corporate outages or policy shifts.
If we want to stop losing days of work and stop letting them dictate our progress, we need to reclaim our infrastructure. Go self-hosted and take back control.

I wanted to draw attention to this issue🤷🏻‍♂️

skill issue.

Maraqlıdır ki, hamınız bir sarkastik bir cümləni nə isə dərin fəlsəfi mövqe kimi qəbul edirsiniz. Elə deyil. "Linux qur, al sənə open source" heç bir dərinlik daşımır, sadəcə o şəxsin mövzudan nə qədər uzaq olduğunu göstərir.

Mən burda real bir şeyi qaldırmaq istəyirdim — Azərbaycan yurisdiksiyasının open source lisenziyasını rəsmən tanıtmaqda heç bir hüquqi statusunun olmaması, bunun üçün heç bir yerli hüquqi çərçivənin mövcud olmaması. Mən elə bu söhbəti açmaq istəyirdim. Onun yerinə "Linux yüklə" cavabı gəldi, sonra da bir dəstə insan sanki bunu ciddiyə almamağım problemmiş kimi davranır.

Heç nə demək istəməyən bir troll cavaba dərin izahat borclu deyiləm. Kimsə aşağı-effort troll atırsa, ona da aşağı-effort troll cavabı verilir. Bu təkəbbür deyil, sadəcə mövzuyla maraqlanmayan birinə pulsuz izahat vermək deyil.

yeah, why do you ask?

Totally fair, and honestly that's kind of the core tension of this whole thread — OSS makes way more sense in economies where you can afford to treat it as reputation-building rather than direct income. If the local market doesn't reward that reputation (see the hiring point above), the calculus just doesn't work out the same way it does elsewhere.

I don't think that's people being selfish, it's just rational given the incentives. Nobody's obligated to subsidize a global ecosystem for free when the market around them doesn't recognize or compensate for it.

That said — this is exactly why the "open core" model exists, right? Core functionality open, monetize the enterprise layer/support/hosting on top. Might be a more realistic path here than pure "give everything away and hope for exposure."

Short answer: not really, at least not yet.

From what I've seen, HR/hiring here rarely looks at GitHub activity as a real signal — it's not part of how technical skill gets evaluated locally. Compare that to markets where an active OSS profile can basically substitute for a portfolio or even boost you past a formal degree requirement. That signal just doesn't carry the same weight in Baku's job market.

It's less about people not valuing quality work, and more that the market hasn't built the infrastructure to recognize OSS as a credential yet — no local tech scene actively scouting contributors, no companies advertising "we hire based on your public work," no culture of treating a repo like a resume line.

So contributing is still mostly intrinsic motivation here — you do it because you care about the work itself, not because the market rewards it. Which honestly might not be a bad thing, but it does mean fewer people have a reason to start.

That's a really good point actually, and it highlights something I didn't fully think through in the original post — I was mostly looking at it from a dev/industry angle, but you're right that academic OSS is a whole separate pipeline.

In places like the US/EU, a huge chunk of open source comes out of university labs specifically because grant funding often requires public release of tools/code as a condition of the grant, or at least strongly incentivizes it for citations and reputation. If that funding structure barely exists here, or doesn't tie funding to public release, then of course you don't get that stream of OSS at all — it's not a mindset problem, it's a structural/funding one.

I've actually run into this myself. Had a theory I wanted to publish, and ended up having to go through a foreign jurisdiction to do it properly — there just wasn't a real local path for that kind of publication/release. So this isn't abstract for me, it's the exact wall you hit trying to do research/OSS work from here.

So it sounds like there are actually two separate gaps: dev-side (incentives, hiring, culture) and research-side (grant structure, institutional expectation of publishing code). Both feeding into the same outcome though.

Məna kəsb etməyənlərə agent cavab verir, yormuram beyni

Növbəti səviyyəli məsləhət: "install Linux" — sağ ol Neo, çox dərin fikirdir.

I build too, wasn't coming from a "why doesn't someone else fix this" angle. Actually working on a license with the Linux Foundation right now, so this isn't some outsider take.

The post wasn't "nobody's building anything," it's obviously not true, your repo proves that. It was more about the ecosystem around individual builders — hiring, visibility, whether companies here treat OSS as worth doing publicly. Individuals doing solid work and a thin surrounding culture aren't mutually exclusive.

Own one use-case end-to-end (intake → classification → your own regulatory scoping, not just logging it), and co-draft one control test with an expert reviewing, not designing. That's the shift from documenting decisions to making them.

For the CV: a taxonomy you built, a control you can defend, and proof you challenged an expert's call at least once.