The peaceful transfer of power in open source projects

https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2025/11/the-peaceful-transfer-of-power-in-open-source-projects/

by edent • 8 months ago

196 151 8 months ago

JimDabell• 8 months ago

A long-standing succession plan also reduces the likelihood of a supply-chain attack. A fed-up maintainer deciding to quit is the worst possible time to pick a successor.

Joel_Mckay• 8 months ago

Considering the sustained harassment some targeted individuals endure, it is important FOSS keeps a healthy community around projects. =3

lapcat6• 8 months ago

I'm not sure there's much utility in this article. It feels like the point was mainly to dunk on Ruby on Rails and WordPress without mentioning them by name. And such dunking may be justified, but it's not particularly interesting and won't lead to an enlightening discussion.

I think it's crucial to point out, though, that Eugen Rochko's motives for stepping down were explicitly personal. He's still quite young, Mastodon itself is still quite young, less than a decade old, and Rochko could have continued in his position for some time. He stepped down because he wanted to step down, not for some selfless reason like succession planning. And I'm not criticizing Rochko for that; he can live his life the way he chooses and do what makes him happy, avoid what he finds unpleasant. And he's to be commended for the mentioned peaceful transition of power. However, there's no inherent reason why Matt Mullenweg or DHH should step down just because Rochko stepped down; their personal goals are obviously different. And Rochko behaved very differently while he was still leading Mastodon.

The author clearly wants those other leaders to step down because he doesn't like those leaders and how they behave, not because of some abstract idea of succession planning. I don't think the metaphor of a king's death is apt here, because nobody has died or become incapacitated. They've just become overtly contemptible.

bayindirh• 8 months ago

I don't take the same thing from the article. Yes, it's lighter than Terence's standard writing, and a bit more closed than his usual style, but I feel that he just wanted to underline something he liked personally.

In once sentence, the blog post reads:

    Hey, look, this guy did something nice, and was honest about it.

That's all.

lapcat6• 8 months ago

I wouldn't even call it "nice." Stepping down only 9 years after the introduction of Mastodon seems a bit premature. I wouldn't call it selfish, though some people might. Plus, Rochko did get paid 1 million euros in the transition.

For all I know, Rails and WordPress already have succession plans, or if not, I'm sure they will eventually, as the founders get older. They're still relatively young.

shkkmo7• 8 months ago

The author clearly wants those other leaders to step down

I think you are putting words in their mouth. They could easily have explicitly called to those leaders to step down.

He stepped down because he wanted to step down, not for some selfless reason like succession planning.

The praise of Rochko isn't for stepping down. The praise is for the way he setup sucession and governance as he did so.

> Simply, we are going to transfer ownership of key Mastodon ecosystem and platform components (including name and copyrights, among other assets) to a new non-profit organization, affirming the intent that Mastodon should not be owned or controlled by a single individual.

lapcat6• 8 months ago

I think you are putting words in their mouth. They could easily have explicitly called to those leaders to step down.

Let me quote from the article: "The last year has seen several BDFLs act like Mad Kings. They become tyrannical despots, lashing out at their own volunteers. They execute takeovers of community projects. They demand fealty and tithes. Like dragons, they become quick to anger when their brittle egos are tested. Spineless courtiers carry out deluded orders while pilfering the coffers."

Also, from a comment by the article author: "I feel that part of the problem with WordPress and Rails is that that there is no model for replacing poor governance." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45980607

I don't think my interpretation is a stretch.

The praise of Rochko isn't for stepping down. The praise is for the way he setup sucession and governance as he did so.

Was there a Mastodon succession plan before Rochko unexpectedly stepped down? I'm not aware of one. And how do you know that Rails and WordPress don't already have their own succession plans?

alphazard2• 8 months ago

Comparing software projects to governments usually produces the wrong intuition. The stakes are much lower, and risk tolerance should be much higher with a software project. Dictators are good, forks are good, even conflict can be good because it means people care. On the contrary, democracy leads to mediocre decisions, designs by committee, and sluggishness.

Unlike with a government, you can easily walk a way from a software project or create a fork. There is almost zero friction to "voting with your feet" in software and it works.

antonvs• 8 months ago

Unlike with a government, you can easily walk away

Part of me hopes for a Snow Crash future where if you don't like the services provided by The American Mafia (a bit of on-the-nose prophecy from Neal Stephenson), you can switch to Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong instead. Sadly, human rights would likely be a casualty in that overall scenario.

purple_turtle8• 8 months ago

Open source software project captured by evil people in the worst case results in a lot of confusion and annoyance.

Countries captured by evil people in the worst cases that result in millions of dead people.

Entirely different risks are acceptable.

gwbas1c4• 8 months ago

There is almost zero friction

Building consensus around which fork to use is going to be a high-friction process; it's going to require much more work than pushing the "fork" button and changing the name in all the assets.

j-bos• 8 months ago

Then make something so much better it's worth it to use. This is code, code is purpose driven first and foremost.

alphazard2• 8 months ago

I don't think the consensus is really necessary. Right now we live in a world where version control and patch management is still pretty high cost. That leads to fewer active forks of each open source project.

As the technology improves, I expect us to move to a world where each project is actually a cloud of forks. So instead of rebranding every time there's a fork of XYZ software, we just refer to the forks by the name of the maintainer. e.g. I use Chad McProgrammer's XYZ.

It seems like some people want unity and sameness for its own sake, or to enforce their vision of a project on the users. I just want the software to work as close to my ideal as possible, and am willing to shop around maintainers to find the one that I personally consider the best. Why would you compromise if you don't have to?

bArray• 8 months ago

Which is why I am delighted that the Mastodon project has shown a better way to behave.

I think we should hold our breath for a moment. The wars waged over concession don't always happen immediately, and not always involving the expected parties [1].

Today, we’re marking another momentous step in this ongoing process as our Founder and now former CEO Eugen Rochko begins his transition into a new role with Mastodon. We are thrilled that he will continue on in an advisory role with our team.

The problem with the undead King is if they ever feel the need to exercise any form of power.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings

smashah• 8 months ago

There should be P.E Firms run by OSS devs concentrating in being the succession and exit plan for OSS founders while charging big tech cos ($1bn+) for support.

Might sound a bit evil at first but it is the way to bolster the whole xkcd issue.

embedding-shape• 8 months ago

Or we could shame companies into action by refusing to use and pay to companies who use FOSS (all of them) but don't contribute back (most of them). Lastly, don't contribute to their FOSS projects, regardless of how nice they might look, if they're not contributing to the ecosystem overall.

jamesbelchamber• 8 months ago

And start putting flowers up our noses while we're at it!

iddan• 8 months ago

Any concrete idea how to peruse this idea? I can’t think of any realistic one

szszrk2• 8 months ago

I struggle to find out who is this aimed at, really.

It's clear there is a lot of drama in Opensource projects lately, but there are countless projects where the maintainer would be thrilled to have one or two people that would actually want to invest their time into reviewing some code with him. Day they find others pumped by their work and willing to invest some time would be celebrated with cake each year.

Just because someone else's broken CI pipeline does "Several thousands of downloads of NPM package per day" should not make you feel bad that you have not "Build an organisation which won't crumble" yet.

That's backwards. You want to help those people? Create that organization. Create another Apache org and take over important projects that need that.

It really feels like banging the wrong drum. Just another person having a broken curl setup and blaming Daniel Stenberg for it.

gassi2• 8 months ago

I run a semi-popular open source project (https://romm.app/), and this is a topic we tend to revisit regularly. While there will always have to be someone at the top who owns the project, we've tried to organize ourselves in a way that should prevent a complete hostile takeover:

  * Gihub organization is co-owned (2 Owners)
  * I own the domain, they run the Discord server
  * Finances are handled by https://opencollective.com/
  * All code is GPL or AGPL licensed

In the event either (or both) of us step away, temporarily or permanently, the core team is has the power and permissions to continue running the project indefinitely. While I would be able to remove them as co-owner on Github in a takeover scenario, I won't have access to the finances or the Discord community.

graemep• 8 months ago

Name and branding are owned by The Project itself

That is only meaningful if the project is a legal entity that can sue, otherwise it means "no one owns it" - which is fine if that is what you want.

gassi2• 8 months ago

otherwise it means "no one owns it" - which is fine if that is what you want.

Thanks for pointing this out, I removed that line to clarify.

bodhi_mind2• 8 months ago

The whole “why I contribute to open source” has been on my mind lately after I published my first open source project and it’s gotten moderate attention from the data engineering community (200 GitHub stars):

TinyETL - Fast, zero-config ETL in a single binary https://github.com/alrpal/TinyETL

The transition from being the sole architect of “my” project into more of a maintainer, organizer, director, has been a unique experience and interesting to reflect on.

What’s the future hold? I really don’t know.

hobs• 8 months ago

Wow, really impressive, there's a lot of stuff going on in such a small package, great work!

bodhi_mind2• 8 months ago

I appreciate the kind words!

muragekibicho• 8 months ago

'or if reading is too woke' Amazing piece and oddly relatable

purple_turtle8• 8 months ago

I'm begging project leaders everywhere - please read up on the social contract and the consent of the governed.

I do not need consent as I am not governing anyone like king or president governs.

If someone is using my project they are also not really entitled to anything, beyond what stated in license and similar documents if any.

If they dislike it, they can fork my project and go away.

If someone wants to be entitled to anything, they are free to make a contract and pay for service they desire. But while many are happy to demand nearly noone is willing to help. Or even fork project. Instead they make entitled demand and treat open source developers as servants or slaves or their pets.

No, you are not entitled to your preferred governance model to be used in my software project.

edent5• 8 months ago

I think you've read something into my post that I didn't intend.

I'm specifically talking about the community of people who do contribute. If you look at the recent shenanigans of WordPress and Ruby, they are causing discontent within the existing organisation of contributors.

Those contributors are, of course, free to fork off if they want. But if you're trying to build a long-term viable project, then you need a way to ensure that the people working with you are treated fairly.

purple_turtle8• 8 months ago

Post explicitly makes request to all project leaders: "I'm begging project leaders everywhere".

As one of them I want to state that others, including you, are not entitled to decide how I run my project. I want to express that I am thankful that this one is phrased as suggestion.

But I utterly reject that open source project is substantially similar to governing a country in responsibility and preferred setup.

So I reject your analogy and suggestions as highly flawed.

peauc• 8 months ago

What kind of issues are you referencing with Ruby ? I have followed the Wordpress drama.

lapcat6• 8 months ago

If you look at the recent shenanigans of WordPress and Ruby, they are causing discontent within the existing organisation of contributors.

This is why I think the article is a bit of misdirection. Your criticism is about project governance not about project succession.

You want the leaders of WordPress and Rails to step down now because you don't like how they behave in power, not because of the danger that the leaders might die or disappear and leave a power vacuum. I feel that the Mastodon example is a red herring here.

ecshafer3• 8 months ago

Communists take over a country and millions of people die. Fascists take over and millions of people die.

Wordpress is some legal issues that is going to result in a law suit and some word press developer having to work overtime. Ruby Bundler has some people losing maintainer access and some hurt feelings.

Lets not compare apples and oranges here.

btilly5• 8 months ago

Even if people are reading something into your post that you don't intend, they are reading it for good reason. Which is that your post sounds exactly like an attack on any technically competent person that runs an open source project.

This fits squarely into a pattern that open source people deal with all of the time. Namely that someone tries to gain control of a project by appeals to "community", while subtly insulting the people who actually did the work. The result is toxic politics that, if it is left to stand, drives away technically competent contributors. And which makes leading that project a misery.

If you don't want to come across this way, you absolutely need to get rid of rhetoric like the paragraph beginning with, "The last year has seen several BDFLs act like Mad Kings." Anyone who has encountered this antipattern will see exactly what that leads to. It is a rhetorical club that can be levied against any technically competent person who objects to something based on technical concerns. The self-proclaimed "community leader" doesn't need to address those technical concerns. They just need to imply the ad hominem. Suggest that the contributor is the would-be Mad King. There are a number of ways that this can end. All of them are bad.

Now I'm not saying that you are bringing up an unimportant issue. But you REALLY need to check your tone if you wish to convince the people that you are supposedly addressing.

trueismywork• 8 months ago

Even those contributors are not entitled to anything apart from what the license allows. Recent events like terraform-opentofu have shown that the actual name has no moat. People will migrate quickly to where rhe community is.

So as long as license is good and there's no CLA, everything is fine.

msteffen• 8 months ago

In support of your point, after Hashicorp relicensed Terraform (thereby killing, or at least squeezing, a lot of Terraform consultancies who had collectively contributed a massive amount to Terraform and prompting the creation of OpenTofu), Oxide and Friends spent several episodes discussing what was reasonable for open source maintainers to do.

They had a great discussion with Kelsey Hightower about it[^1], and his answer (which I liked a lot) was basically just that maintainers’ only real obligation was to be transparent about governance. If you want to be a dictator and ignore bugs and contributions that aren’t personally compelling to you, that’s fine—but please just put that in the repo. That way, people who are trying to build a business on open source work and want customers, or to build trust with users for any other reason, can distinguish themselves from maintainers that don’t care (as is their right). Otherwise the reputation of Open Source as a whole suffers.

[^1]: The whole episode is good but here’s the part where Kelsey argues that people just need to be transparent: https://youtu.be/13ctYOu8TsA?si=cI8TwHX6tAaCwH6o&t=1320

gwbas1c4• 8 months ago

The thing to keep in mind is that widely successful open source projects are bigger than the single person who started the project. These simply can't be forked without broad consensus around which fork to follow.

The author (who also responded) isn't referring to small libraries or utilities that are written by a single person and don't have much public contribution.

Aperocky2• 8 months ago

These simply can't be forked without broad consensus around which fork to follow.

They can and the user will decide.

Lerc• 8 months ago

There seems to be a notion of 'Too big to fork'

I don't think it is true. Certainly it takes more work. Broad consensus may be part of that work.

If you cannot reach consensus to produce an equal product as a unilateral decision maker then the benefits of dictatorship are still outweighing the disadvantages.

If another unilateral decision maker runs a fork, people may move to it if it is better. That's them voting, it's not dictatorship, it's representative democracy.

umanwizard• 8 months ago

The Linux kernel has probably dozens of actively developed forks.

Lio• 8 months ago

There seems to be the implication that the people taking over are better placed to run things.

You have to ask yourself though, if those trying to assume control can't get together and sell the idea of a new fork to the userbase why would they be the best people to successfully run the original project?

jjice• 8 months ago

Completely agreed. There has always been bits of entitlement to open source projects by users, but I feel like increase in package managers and ecosystems (which I think is generally a good thing) has lead to a _huge_ increase in people being entitled assholes to maintainers.

Just look like the GitHub issues of a fairly large package with a single maintainer. The demanding attitude from someone who wants a feature that doesn't even make sense for the package to an individual who has a separate full time job and a family who does this for the love of the game is very upsetting.

Nevermark3• 8 months ago

There really should be a donation field “Estimated resolution cost” with payment options, associated with any user request. With a default payment preset by the maintainer to optimize mindfulness.

“I am here to help, but you shall pay with your cash or your cheap guilty soul!”

shkkmo7• 8 months ago

Just look like the GitHub issues of a fairly large package with a single maintainer.

If there is a single maintainer then they aren't really a project leader since they aren't leading anyone and there is no community of maintainers.

When there are other maintainers and other people volunteering their time to work on the project, then it is time to start thinking about succession and governance.

zahlman• 8 months ago

I think this criticism doesn't go far enough. As https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45980503 says, the criticism appears to be more about governance than succession. But then, the next sentence after your quote is:

Or, if reading is too woke, just behave like grown-ups rather than squabbling tweenagers.

To me, this makes it abundantly clear that the goal is to associate leadership the author doesn't like with politics the author doesn't like. It's in a "behold, Goofus and Gallant" style of diatribe that I've seen a few times before and it always rubs me the wrong way.

Yes, a lot of FOSS projects have seen friction between the official leadership[1] and major players in the community. But it seems to come in three major forms: the kind where the conflict is expected and part of how those people have gotten along historically for years[2]; the kind where the players are trying to stage a coup because they don't like the leadership's { real-world politics, social status, opinion of pineapple on pizza, ... } expressed entirely outside of development spaces; and the kind where the project is already forked but at least one party can't leave the other alone (sometimes because the project is really more about infrastructure/platform than software; sometimes because leadership kicked someone out, in an inverse of the previous situation).

But swipes like the above instantly throw out all nuance and good will, and effectively round everything off to "all these bad things happen because some people just can't behave themselves, which conveniently correlates with a caricature of my own political adversaries".

1. There are plenty of cases showing that moving away from the BDFL model doesn't actually fix the problem.

2. Believe it or not, many people actually enjoy operating that way. I hold that people who don't have no business telling people who do to cut it out.

corry• 8 months ago

You've got your finger on the pulse of something that open source has always represented to me: freedom of the creator and others to just... do what they want with it (subject to the license of course).

Don't like what the main developer is doing with it? You're free to fork and continue on your way if they don't see it your way. If you lack the skills or time to do that, that's your problem - you're not entitled to the maintainers' labor.

The freedom cuts both ways, and by adding in elements of social contracts and other overlays onto the otherwise relatively pure freedom represented by OSS, you end up with the worst of both worlds.

THAT ALL SAID - there's an important distinction between a given piece of software that's open source versus a "true project", which is larger-scale, more contributors involved, might be part of mission-critical systems, etc, where the social dynamics DO need to careful thought and management.

But even that seems to be more a question of specific types of OSS business models which is related but not the same as the licenses and overall social dynamics around OSS projects.

fellowniusmonk• 8 months ago

Before it becomes anything else code is first and foremost art & personal expression.

Code is a very fun form of literature at heart.

Other attributes may be tacked on later, it may be integrated into and transform into an engine or company that has rules and regulations.

If the author treats it as only art, with license choices, etc. then they aren't entitled to treat it like anything at all, it's literally their personal expression.

And this is recognized in the physical world as well. More than people realize, some buildings that are incredibly dangerous are considered sculpture effectively. There is a rickety castle built by mostly one guy in CO that meets this criteria.

preisschild• 8 months ago

If you lack the skills or time to do that, that's your problem - you're not entitled to the maintainers' labor.

Or give the maintainer money if he wants :)

dogleash• 8 months ago

THAT ALL SAID - there's an important distinction between a given piece of software that's open source versus a "true project"

This cuts the first half of your post down to meaninglessness.

It seems like you're just enjoying romantic thoughts about creator freedom in the context of projects you otherwise don't care about.

retrochameleon• 8 months ago

I think you are trying to make the point that there is the ethical argument to consider the impact of a decision if your project has grown large enough that there is major dependence on it.

I do agree there is an ethical obligation to make some effort to consider impacts like that, and make an attempt to inform users of your intent, but that's all it is. No one is obligated to be ethical, either, when it comes to a personal project with volunteered time and effort.

I think the argument of obligation becomes a stronger if your project has taken on a lot of contributions from other parties. And yet, those contributors must acknowledge that they are willingly doing so with no promises except the posted license terms.

tracker15• 8 months ago

I'm with you on this... The whole article just seems like insidious, communist take over of what other people create.

It usually starts with a Code of Conduct decree.. it ends with people who don't actually write software acting as authoritarian dictators in a software banana republic.

keyringlight• 8 months ago

The other thing in the back of my mind is the Jia Tan situation with XZ utils, that was a gentle and gradual social engineered takeover.

purple_turtle8• 8 months ago

Why it would be specifically communist?

imiric3• 8 months ago

I've read this sentiment often on this forum, and I suppose it shouldn't surprise me given that most people here share the entrepreneurial mindset. But it still rubs me the wrong way, and I'll write about it again.

What I don't like about this idea that the role of open source authors ends with throwing some code over the fence, relinquishing any responsibility for it beyond what their chosen license dictates, is that it completely ignores the community aspect that forms around software, and in large part, contributes to the success of OSS.

Software is written for people. Open source software explicitly invites collaboration, and sharing of knowledge. When someone sees people asking for help, and making feature and improvement suggestions, as "demands" from "entitled" users, they're completely missing this point of community. When they additionally require or suggest that no work will be done unless these entitled users pay up, it's no different from source available, proprietary or commercial software at that point. Of course your work should be compensated, and you shouldn't be expected to work for free. You are free to choose any number of viable business models to ensure that happens. But demanding this from your users is essentially putting the software behind a paywall. It also signals to users that the direction of the project is dictated not by a community of passionate users, but by whoever pays the most, which is a twisted incentive for any software.

My point is: there is more to OSS than the code and the license. Despite what some may claim, there is an unwritten social contract which is created when software is published in the open, whether the author decides to ignore this or not. Some authors do acknowledge this explicitly[1], which is a large factor in making their projects more successful than those from authors who decide to alienate their user base.

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/1997/msg00017.html

evanelias5• 8 months ago

Open source software explicitly invites collaboration, and sharing of knowledge.

The licenses permit that, but they explicitly do not "invite" it; they are totally neutral on that point. Upstream FOSS authors can reject all third-party contributions, and their software is still unarguably FOSS.

When someone sees people asking for help, and making feature and improvement suggestions, as "demands" from "entitled" users

You're mischaracterizing the situation. It's usually about a specific small vocal subset of users, who are literally demanding things in a rude and arrogant manner.

Despite what some may claim, there is an unwritten social contract which is created when software is published in the open, whether the author decides to ignore this or not.

"Unwritten social contracts" effectively only exist in cases where an overwhelming majority of people believe in the same set of social norms. That absolutely is not the case in the software industry. There's no broad agreement about what that social contract entails, or if it even exists, and therefore it de facto does not exist for the industry as a whole.

Individual projects can choose their own social norms, but that doesn't inherently extend those norms to the entire industry.

grokgrok• 8 months ago

You've drawn a neat dialectic between the hobbyist technophile and the community builder. If you want the help that you seem to eschew as rare, you could: share control through the delineation of roles, earn collective buy-in (consensus is built through some collective deliberation process, e.g democracy); otherwise, you're within your rights as individual.

Those who expect that "those who work will work for me" (the enslaver mentality) ... they also need boning up on social contract theory -- which as a leader you could nudge those individuals back towards good citizenship and maybe even gain useful support, but that's just your opportunity and not an imperative.

dsr_• 8 months ago

In fact, you only have consent. People who don't want to work with you don't have to; everyone who does want to work with you only does so because of mutual consent. Act badly and they will walk away.

jancsika• 8 months ago

If they dislike it, they can fork my project and go away.

I definitely agree with you here. Forking, almost by definition, means the "D" in BDFL is a joke. The author pretending that "D" is deadly serious is an incredibly counterproductive and passive-aggressive way to express their concern.

Still, the question remains-- if your project has more than a single developer, have you communicated to your project members who you think has the best knowledge and ability to take over after you're gone? If the only developer is you then the question is moot. Otherwise, it's false modesty to pretend that's none of your business.

theoldgreybeard• 8 months ago

Why would I care when I am dead. It's just software and "bloody civil wars" is not something that happens over software governance. Oh no, some people might say mean things to eachother and someone might fork the software. Big Deal. Figure it out for yourselves like adults. Remember, the license says AS-IS and NO WARRANTY. Use at your own risk. I don't owe you anything. If you want work done on it - do it yourself or pay me.

Jolter• 8 months ago

I think you’re misunderstanding the point of the linked article. It’s obviously about community-run projects, with or without a dictator for life.

If you are running a one-man show, obviously you’re in the right to do whatever you want. Why would you pick a successor?

1970-01-01• 8 months ago

Linux will be the ultimate test for this. Linus will eventually retire or die. The individual that takes it from there sets the future for all open source. I cannot imagine open source existing if the kernel maintenance is squandered.

Matumio• 8 months ago

Disagree, Linux is too big to fail. Too many people depend on it. It may get chaotic, but worst-case distributions will start collecting patches, as they already do for many unmaintained projects. Eventually one or two of them will emerge as the new upstream.

purple_turtle8• 8 months ago

I guess the worst case is that future Linux will end entirely controlled by Google/Facebook/, Microsoft.

zamadatix• 8 months ago

If it doesn't go to Greg Kroah-Hartman and continue much the same I'll eat my shoe.

layer82• 8 months ago

Greg is older than Linus.

ema• 8 months ago

There has been open source before Linux and there will be open source after Linux. Yes Linux is a flagship project but the whole culture of open source is much broader than it.

officeplant• 8 months ago

As soon as they opened up the possibility for AI code in the kernel the writing was already on the wall.

See ya'll in BSD land.

smsm422• 8 months ago

Linus should take a lesson from history and appoint the successor in advance, and publicly groom that person for the role, so nobody would have any doubts.

szszrk2• 8 months ago

He doesn't seem to be as afraid of that as OP.

https://itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/torvalds-say...

ziml772• 8 months ago

Sorry for commenting about the page itself, but did anyone else have to go into reader mode to read it? The page is bouncing up and down, the text is extremely blurry and varying in size letter by letter, and every element seems randomly slanted.

edent5• 8 months ago

I think you might have accidentally activated the page's "Drunk CSS" mode - https://shkspr.mobi/blog/2025/09/drunk-css/

Click one of the theme buttons at the top to restore normality.

ziml772• 8 months ago

That was the problem. Thank you!

asim• 8 months ago

I have tried to hand off a project for years with many failed attempts. In the case of Mastodon they have some very high profile names that effectively want to relive the glory days of Twitter and take it over. In the case of smaller projects, you have to very diligent when deciding who to hand off too. I don't think there are great answers here.

If anyone is interested https://go-micro.dev

ferguess_k• 8 months ago

I think it depends on what kind of OSP they are.

For example, Linux kernel is definitely widely used and I'd argue that it is one of the few things that have achieved globally acknowledgement and usage, i.e. a "human" thing, as the aliens said. Such a project would naturally require some strong leader (Linus is famous for being straightforward and none-BS) and a bunch of able enforcers (maintainers). I don't think we are short of able enforcers, although the total number of Linux maintainers who understand the full picture may be small, but we don't need a lot of them anyway. The key is to elect an equally good and strong leader, without which the project may degrade slowly, like all human projects. I'd hope someone with both the technical knowledge as well a strong character to take over whence Linus retires -- but Linus is only 55 years old so I believe he and the community still have many years to search for the next leader.

Nevermark3• 8 months ago

The great selling point of democracy is that it allows for the peaceful transition of power.

This is the true benefit of democracy that it actually delivers.

Most stated benefits of democracy are partially true, but with a solid remainder supplied via the rose colored lenses of denial and hope. There is much work that remains to be done.

riazrizvi2• 8 months ago

This is a testament to how we can get lost in the weeds with ideas. The economic reality is that there’s little money in open source, on an hourly pay basis. There’s no barrier to entry, put in the hours and you can have a reason to work in all your spare time too. It’s silly to compare how people treat positions of real economic power to them.

shkkmo7• 8 months ago

The leadership of large open sourcr projects do carry real economic power. WordPress and Ruby have real significant impact, Mastodon less so.

riazrizvi2• 8 months ago

Then the behavior would follow the traditional path, and there’s nothing to write about, no?

andremat• 8 months ago

Build an organisation which won't crumble the moment its founder is arrested for their predatory behaviour on tropical islands.

Or gets convicted of the first-degree murder of his wife.

ChrisMarshallNY2• 8 months ago

I authored a project. Basically a framework and API, that gestated for over a decade. During that time, I managed it pretty much alone.

It was difficult.

I could have easily considered it "mine, all mine!". When I first started handing it over to the team that now runs it, I considered being a BDFL, but found out that I couldn't let go, while still in the mix.

So I walked away from it. I still chip in a peanut gallery comment on Slack, every now and then, but otherwise, I'm history.

Best decision I ever made. The new team took it to the next level.

the_biot• 8 months ago

That's great, but it doesn't always turn out that way.

Twice now I've started open source projects, got them to varying levels of success, handed over to another maintainer, and watched it turn to shit. Luck of the draw, I think :-(

ChrisMarshallNY2• 8 months ago

It's a matter of motivation.

It's a long story, but part of the reason that it took ten years, was because I wasn't gonna hand it over to "just anybody."

m463• 8 months ago

"The great selling point of democracy is that it allows for the peaceful transition of power."

that is an interesting point I didn't realize.

smsm422• 8 months ago

OSS projects are not governments, they are communities. You can't just come to a village and declare "I don't like how you live here, you therefore must have a plan of how to accommodate my wishes!" Nope, they don't. And the fact that you read entire two books on "consent of the governed" is irrelevant, because they are not trying to govern you. You are free to hit the road and go to another village anytime.

When you become part of the community, contribute to it, gain share in building the common thing then you might gain some claim to participation in the governance. Or maybe not. And the beauty of OSS is that if you don't like that, you are free to fork it and establish your own community literally at any time. Yes, you'd be facing an uphill struggle to convince people your community is better and they should move over. That's exactly how it should be. If it's indeed better, they will come. If it's just your ego and delusion speaking, they will not.

I don't have enough interest in Mastodon project to have an opinion about what happened there, but presenting it like every project founder owes to turn it over to the Committee of Concerned Citizens is nonsense. And, also, the description of "There are no VCs bringing in their MBA-brained lackeys to extract maximum value while leaving a rotting husk." may yet prove very false, as the project grows. Github was once a young, scrappy and full of inconvential management ideas, now it's literally Microsoft. Let Mastodon be governed by committee for 10 years and we'll see.

The peaceful transfer of power in open source projects

Related Stories