Effective GitHub Governance Tips

Recently, I was thinking about the responses from Stellar core dev in re updating some documentation stylization. Namely, they commented that only programmatic syntax enforcement can create longer-term change. Indeed, they seemed unconvinced that a style guide may offer the answer to synchronization across that particular central developer repository.

This hit me extremely hard, especially given the recent actions where I've explicitly asked people to do things or even go faster. I think one of the core tenets of all this is freedom inherent in people making their own choices on a decentralized basis. The premise behind all grassroots entrepreneurship seems to be the core tenets revealed by Adam Smith, which are so deeply interwoven into social norms that have existed for centuries. I remember seeing some of the super old forms of money, property, and authority in the Zurich Money Museum.

The declarative takeaway for me was that you can't just force a single, unanimous, or monolithic system onto people. Rather, it is the facts and circumstances of their situations that can guide them towards uncovering a local solution themselves. Because it's really only when someone has buy-in or control over the decision-making process that they might truly accept, appreciate, and further final results.

On footnotes

I was thinking about this when drafting some footnote references in the TAR comment with href URLs. Reference websites, files, docs—whatever you want to call them, I normally just shorthand down to href.

I thought about asking the community how they would format the notes, so that we might all come together to find the one best answer. But for something as intimate as creative artistry, diction, and flow itself—it just doesn't seem like a declarative "policy" gives members the most freedom. Namely, I felt completely deflated and invalidated in my self-expression in the origin conversation when my creative/artsy merge PR name was changed to something dry and lengthy.

Perhaps the best path ahead is leaving the immaterial choices directly with the people themselves. Giving them the power to forge their own slight improvements in the system. And then, if something requires a more expansive discussion, empowering people to get the ball rolling based on their perspective, work, and passions.

On labor

I think we have an extremely unique opportunity by moving all development onto GitHub as free software. I'm excited for the possibilities of building the first company that might not even run payroll because of meritocratic, decentralized, and open community governance. God, I just think it will be so helpful to society at large.

Part of it might seem challenging to outsiders at first. But I believe so wholeheartedly in the human spirit, ingenuity, and integrity. I've seen firsthand what self-directed individuals can do with minimal "invisible hand" motivations, and I think everything will get a whole lot better once we can make that a more explicit contributor valuation.

I remember the Warren Buffett clip where he says he'd pay a million bucks for ten percent of your future career's earnings. I think the untapped capital stock in people is much higher than that, and it seems decentralized systems are the only way to capture and then equitably distribute that value without a rent-seeking middleman. And the policy implications just seem to best align the grander move for shared progress over isolated self-interests.