Community Contribution at GitLab
community.inc
community.inc
It's amazing to see how all our resources have been put together to create such an exhaustive reflection of our culture & values. Thank you for doing that GarethX.
GitLab's dual flywheel strategy [0] reinforces our open source growth strategy [1]
For those interested, you can learn about GitLab's stewardship promises in our handbook [2] and inspect the Git history for changes transparently (right corner - view page source - GitLab repository view - History)
[0] https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/company/strategy/#dual-...
[1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/open-source/gr...
[2] https://handbook.gitlab.com/handbook/company/stewardship/#pr...
No horse in the non-globally-competitive race, just amusingly regressive to see.
If a business can't sustainably operate by strictly adhering to their values, is the business sustainable or are the values broken? Is it all a fool's errand? I don't know. It doesn't seem worth closing the book on GitLab for.
(I don't know the details but my impression is that GitLab feels very pressured to minmax their monetization strategy to be able to compete with GitHub. I don't see a viable alternative for them. If they're super profitable and I'm talking out of my ass, let me know.)
And how the location factors are decided is not shared with the staff, just vague hand waving of industry averages. This again is again in contradiction with their "transparency" value.
I can point out a lot more things. They might be transparent, but are not above exploiting folks from weaker economies.
Small nitpick/pedantics: the person in question wasn't a database administrator, or a junior developer as some sites reported at the time. They were a senior developer that happened to be part of a (too) small database focused team.
Then they dropped that tier and forced us to move to the next tier up which was $19/user/month (now $29 it seems?) and filled with features we don't need or want.
Needless to say we're currently in the process of moving to an alternative.
I am curious however what features you don’t want/need in the other tier
I’m not arguing whether this is a good or a bad thing—familiarity leads to productivity, of course—but in my opinion GitLab really does derive a lot of its success in being a “GitHub clone”.
I’m likely wrong here, but I was under the impression that companies start adopting the BSL when they notice their OSS product is being forked and used by other companies for profit and they want to be able to capture that revenue. I think that makes a lot of sense for tools like Terraform and OSS DBs. I just didn’t get the impression that a lot of companies use GitLab in that way? Like, GitLab itself is already easy and free to use, and I don’t see anybody chomping at the bit looking to fork it and offer some SaaS product on top of it.
They are already facing fierce competition fron Gitea and sourcehut. If they start taking toys away from big open source instances like Debian, GNOME, Free desktop, et cetera, the community will migrate.
Sorry to hear you found reading the article difficult. It's an aesthetic choice I've received only positive comments about before this, but I'll look into providing some option to disable it - perhaps I could hook into the prefers-reduced-motion option or similar.