The open-source model thrives on collaboration. When individuals can freely download and edit a project, this often inspires them to contribute improvements. This desire to enhance the base project naturally fosters collaboration within its community to update and refine it. In many ways, collaboration begins even before a project is formally established. When an idea for a new project emerges, it’s likely that a few people will resonate with its concept and potential uses. Discussions among these interested individuals represent the earliest form of collaboration. Typically, one person takes the initiative to start the project, often for their own benefit, but this initial effort can quickly attract others. People join in, contributing to development and participating in decision-making. Of course, each project develops its own process for finalizing decisions.
In my own experience with the project Jellify, it is managed by a BDFL (Benevolent Dictator For Life). This doesn’t mean the BDFL makes every choice in isolation; they frequently discuss options with other contributors and users to determine the best course of action. However, once the BDFL makes a decision, it is generally final. This governance model is common and can be seen in prominent projects like Linux, with Linus Torvalds, and historically in Python, with Guido van Rossum. In both cases, these leaders had the final say, but their decisions were significantly informed by community dialogue.
Of course, the BDFL model isn’t the sole approach to governance. Other common structures include steering committees, community governance (often based on meritocracy), or external committees. Each of these models presents distinct advantages and disadvantages, the suitability of which often depends on the specific project. For governance models reliant on a small number of decision-makers, a key consideration is the “bus factor” (the project’s ability to continue if key leaders were to “mysteriously” disappear) especially when long-term sustainability is a goal. Conversely, involving too many lead decision-makers can introduce bureaucracy, potentially prolonging the time it takes to finalize any decision.
I believe decision making is one of the most active forms of collaboration in open source, as it’s when individuals are most deeply connected with others in the project’s ecosystem. While working on a specific issue, you might often work independently unless explicitly paired with someone. This, however, doesn’t mean you are alone. Fellow contributors are usually available to help and collaboratively solve problems if needed. All one has to do is reach out and ask, which is a testament to the supportive environments that open-source communities cultivate. This was quite prevalent in Jellify, where developers would often experiment with different approaches to a problem, then discuss their findings and collectively decide on the next steps.
Having a diverse range of contributors makes a project significantly more robust, especially when everyone actively participates. During brainstorming sessions for new features or potential bug fixes, different people bring varied knowledge and perspectives on all aspects of a proposed contribution. While this can make finalizing a decision more complex, it also ensures that a wider range of possibilities is considered. Furthermore, it increases awareness of potential issues that might arise from an addition, allowing the team to plan and prepare for upcoming changes. A large, active community like this also contributes to a project’s longevity, as individuals become more invested and work towards its continued survival and growth.
Ultimately, the primary benefits of cooperation are the increased speed and efficiency compared to solo development. Collaboration also allows a project to scale much larger, enabling multiple individuals to manage different areas simultaneously. For instance, the sheer size of Linux today would be unmanageable without a dedicated group of members driving its ongoing development and maintenance. In the case of Jellify, when I first joined, the community was quite small, with only a few developers. About a month later, Jellify had grown significantly, with developers spread across various problem domains and porting efforts, all helping to build something they would collectively use.
Leave a Reply