I've been following the OpenAI Agents repo and came across this pull request.
A contributor submitted a massive, 1,200+ line PR to add support for the Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol. This wasn't a lazy contribution.
It included 30 tests, full documentation, and core infrastructure for agent interoperability.
What's notable is that the A2A protocol was initiated and specified by Google.
The response from the OpenAI maintainer showed zero appreciation for the significant effort. It was a cold, procedural shutdown:
"Hi @Kunmeer-SyedMohamedHyder, thanks for sending this pull request. However, we don't have immediate plans to add A2A support to this SDK. We can't say if or when we'll review it. For future major contributions, it would be appreciated if you could start with an issue for discussion first."
The PR was then marked as draft and auto-closed by a bot for inactivity.
This is a perfect example of the "open source" facade from large AI labs. An engineer does a huge amount of high-quality, free work to add a valuable, open interoperability standard. Instead of appreciation or discussion, they're met with a "we don't have plans" and a passive-aggressive "ask first next time."
It's hard not to see this as a "Not Invented By A Competitor" rejection. Why else would you show zero interest in a feature that so clearly benefits the entire agent ecosystem? It sends a strong message to any potential contributor: don't bother building anything that doesn't align with OpenAI's closed roadmap, especially if it has Google's name on it.
What's the point of hosting on GitHub if you treat high-effort community contributions like this?
sascha_heyer•5h ago
A contributor submitted a massive, 1,200+ line PR to add support for the Agent-to-Agent (A2A) protocol. This wasn't a lazy contribution.
It included 30 tests, full documentation, and core infrastructure for agent interoperability.
What's notable is that the A2A protocol was initiated and specified by Google.
The response from the OpenAI maintainer showed zero appreciation for the significant effort. It was a cold, procedural shutdown:
"Hi @Kunmeer-SyedMohamedHyder, thanks for sending this pull request. However, we don't have immediate plans to add A2A support to this SDK. We can't say if or when we'll review it. For future major contributions, it would be appreciated if you could start with an issue for discussion first."
The PR was then marked as draft and auto-closed by a bot for inactivity.
This is a perfect example of the "open source" facade from large AI labs. An engineer does a huge amount of high-quality, free work to add a valuable, open interoperability standard. Instead of appreciation or discussion, they're met with a "we don't have plans" and a passive-aggressive "ask first next time."
It's hard not to see this as a "Not Invented By A Competitor" rejection. Why else would you show zero interest in a feature that so clearly benefits the entire agent ecosystem? It sends a strong message to any potential contributor: don't bother building anything that doesn't align with OpenAI's closed roadmap, especially if it has Google's name on it.
What's the point of hosting on GitHub if you treat high-effort community contributions like this?