, ,

How GitHub Saved OpenSource

For a long time I’ve been thinking about just how much Github has revolutionized open source. Yes, it has made managing the code base significantly easier but its real impact has likely been on the social aspects of managing open source. Github has rebooted how the innovation cycle in open source while simultaneously raising the bar for good community management.

The irony may be that it has done this by making it easy to do the one thing many people thought would kill open source, more easy: forking. I remember talking to friends who – before Github launched – felt that forking, while a necessary check on any project, was also its biggest threat and so needed to be managed carefully.

Today, nothing could feel further from the truth. By collapsing the transaction costs around forking Github hasn’t killed open source. It has saved it.

The false fear of forking

The concern with forking – as it was always explained to me – was that it would splinter a community, potentially to the degree that non of the emerging groups would have the necessary critical mass to carry the project forward. Yes, it was a necessary the forking be allowed – but only as a last result to manage the worst excesses of bad community leadership. But forking was messy stuff even emotionally painful and exhausting: while sometimes it was mutually agreed upon and cordial, many feared that it would usually was preceded by ugly infighting and nastiness that culminated in an (sometimes) angry rejection and (almost) political act forming a new community.

Forking = Innovation Accelerated

Maybe forking was an almost political act – when it was hard to do. But once anyone could do it, anytime, anywhere, the dynamics changed. I believe open source projects work best when contributors are able to engage in low transaction cost cooperation and high transaction cost collaboration is minimized. The genius of open source is that it does not require a group to debate every issue and work on problems collectively, quite the opposite. It works best when architected so that individuals or functioning sub-groups can grab a part of the whole, take it away, play with it, and bring the solution back and it fit it back into the larger project.

In this world innovation isn’t driven by getting lots of people to work together simultaneously, compromising, negotiating solutions, and waiting on others to complete their part. Such a process can be slow, and worse, can allow promising ideas to be killed by early criticism or be watered down before they reach their potential. What people often need is a private place where their idea can be nursed, an innovation cycle driven by enabling people to work on the same problem in isolation, and then bring working solutions back to the group to be debated. (Yes, this is a simplification, but I think the general idea stands).

And this is why GitHub was such a godsend. Yes it made managing the code base easier, but what it really did was empower contributors. It took something everyone thought would kill open source projects – forking – and made it a powerful tool of experimentation and play. Now, rather than just play with a small part of the code base, you could play with the entire thing. My strong suspension is that this has rebooted the innovation cycle for many open source projects. The ability of having lots of people innovating in the safety of their private repository has produced more new ideas then ever before.

Forking = Better Community Management

I also suspect that eliminating the transaction costs around forking has improved open source in another, important way. It has made open source project leads more accountable to the communities they manage.


Before Github the transaction costs around forking were higher. Setting up a new repository, firing up a bug tracking system and creating all the other necessary infrastructure wasn’t impossible, but neither was it simple. As a result, I suspect it usually only made sense to do if you could motivate a group of contributors to fork with you – there needed to be a deep grievance to justify all this effort. In short, the barriers to forking were high. That meant that project leaders had a lot of leeway in how they engaged in their community before the “threat” of forking became real. The high transaction cost of forking created a cushion for lazy, bad, or incompetent open source leadership and community management.

But collapse the transaction costs to forking and the cost of a parallel project emerging also drops significantly. This is not to claim that the cost of forking is zero – but I suspect that open source community leaders now have to be much more sensitive to the needs, demands, wishes and contributions of their community. More importantly, I suspect this has been good for open source in general.

Email & Share:

Suggest to Techmeme via Twitter

Original post

Leave a Comment

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply