"But if this issue goes unresolved for a long period of time, my employer might pay me to fix the issue myself and contribute the change upstream. That doesn’t

"But if this issue goes unresolved for a long period of time, my employer might pay me to fix the issue myself and contribute the change upstream. That doesn’t sit well with me. We pay Google a lot of money to use their products, and having to fix bugs in those products ourselves isn’t what we signed up for." I hear this, but I'm not sure that this is a case of Google expecting customers to fix bugs themselves or "outsourcing" to volunteers. I can think of a lot of instances where people would be thrilled if they even had the ability to fix a persistent issue with software that the company won't fix itself. If you pay a lot of money to Google and expect customer service, it seems to me that you should be filing a bug with Google around BigQuery if you expect Googlers to fix it vs. the Apache Project. (If Google has committers in that upstream then they can be assigned the work if it's important enough.) I guess what I'm saying is that filing a bug with the upstream feels like an indirect route if you expect customer service. I'd be filing the bug or discussing the flaw with my account rep / salesperson as close to the vendor as possible.