I would love to do a Kafka analysis. :-)
Maybe Kafka users should do a crowdfund for it if the companies aren't willing. Realistically, what would the goal of the crowdfund have to be for you to consider it?
On another axis: Jepsen isn't "trying to get there [to FDB's testing]" because Jepsen and FDB's tests are solving different problems. Jepsen exists to test arbitrary, third-party databases without their cooperation, or even access to the source. FoundationDB's test suite is designed to test FoundationDB, and they have political and engineering buy-in to design the database from the ground up to cooperate with a deterministic (and, I suspect, protocol-aware) simulation framework.
To some extent Antithesis may be able to bridge the gap by rendering arbitrary distributed binaries deterministic. Something I'd like to explore!
Sometimes I look at what people say about FDB and it feels like... folks are putting words in my mouth that I don't recognize. I was very impressed by a short phone conversation with their engineers ~12 years ago. That's good, but that's not, like, a substantive experimental evaluation. That's "I focus my unpaid efforts on databases which seem more likely to yield fun, interesting results".
This isn't the first time you've discussed how parlous the Kafka tx spec is - not that that's even really a spec as such. I think this came up in your Redpanda analysis.
(And totally agree with you btw, some of the worst ever customer Kafka issues I dealt with at RH involved transactions.)
So was wondering what your ideal spec would look like, because I'd be interested in trying to capture the tx semantics in something like TLA+ as a learning experience - and because it would only help FOSS Kafka and FOSS clients improve, especially now that Confluent has withdrawn so much from Apache Kafka development.