A little lost here as well but my read was that the PR author was working with outside parties (their company??) to get approval (sign a CLA?) and some third party asked for Datadog's opinion and Datadog advised that they wait for a Datadog feature. Due to this discussion, the third party was in "default no" and the PR author did not push the matter, expecting Datadog to release something, when they did not after several months, the author reopened and pushed to get approval.
I could be totally wrong, but maybe combined we can make sense of it. From my read it feels like DD misguided this third party which then advised the author to spike.
I could be totally wrong, but maybe combined we can make sense of it. From my read it feels like DD misguided this third party which then advised the author to spike.