
New Year, New CEO for GitHub - goodwillhunting
https://github.com/blog/1761-new-year-new-ceo-for-github
======
jmduke
GitHub's growth in 2013 has been fascinating to watch. They've been relentless
with new functionality, and the overwhelming trend with that new functionality
is a marked increase in the scope of their operations: stuff like generic data
support, baked-in visualizations, and quality-of-life improvements points to
the conclusion that GitHub is going to stop being the "best place to share
code with friends, co-workers, classmates, and complete strangers" [1] and
start being the best place to share your work and data with everyone.

2014 should be a great year for them.

[1] [https://github.com/about](https://github.com/about)

~~~
mpdehaan2
Relentless with new functionality? Yes, no, maybe, I don't know.

I'd love to see things fixed up in their issue tracker, and you still can't
apply a label to a pull request while looking at the pull request.

I love GitHub for many reasons, but I question whether the push towards
'managerless-culture' means some less interesting things don't get done
sometimes.

I do note the ability to see web traffic prior to someone's implementation of
a hack to do it on HackerNews, but on the other hand, I still miss the impact
graph. How about being able to see number of clones and updates instead of
just web traffic?

The ways to spotlight interesting new projects is great, but I think the
social and discovery aspects could be upgraded too.

But #1, the bug tracker needs help. Code review tools seem nice, but are
seemingly enterprise only. While I welcome and encourage that kind of business
model, large open source projects could benefit the most from that kind of
functionality.

So, yeah, GitHub is becoming the standard for code sharing. It's great... but
there's a lot of opportunity not being capitalized on too relative to their
organizational size.

From the outside, it looks like they are probably dealing more with internal
plumbing than new functionality to me. Which is also understandable. It's just
a shame that some features that are quite useful (say, impact graph) get cut
or uninteresting to work on (issue tracking) don't get worked on.

~~~
stefan_kendall
The code review pales in comparison to Crucible. Vertical diffs only, can't
ignore whitespace without losing the ability to comment, and there's no fast
navigation through files.

~~~
gjtorikian
> and there's no fast navigation through files.

Have you hit the "t" key on the site?

------
Ryel
Github PLEASE work on some kind of 'Proof Of Activity'

98% of my work is private and all employers get to see is about 100 open-
source commits when I have roughly 4,000 commits throughout several private
organizations. I know I need more open source contributions but I should be
able to prove to an employer that I am a heavy Github user and have more
experience than 100 commits.

Sometimes I've been asked to send a screenshot of my total number of commits,
and happily oblige to the odd request but a screenshot is not even worth it's
weight in the physical world (aka nothing).

~~~
georgemcbay
Using total number of github commits as any sort of qualifier for employment
is as bad (maybe even worse) as asking for a wc -l LOC count on your last
project.

To be clear, I don't have an issue with github contributions being seen as a
plus for hiring... but trying to turn this into something concretely
quantifiable via total commit count (especially on commits you can't even see)
seems crazy to me.

Please let me know which employers are asking you for this information so I
can avoid applying to them in the future!

~~~
Ryel
They are not(I hope) judging quality of my work based on # of commits.

-They are assuming I have little to no experience in a service they use every day.

-They are assuming I don't contribute to Open Source in any way (I contribute to private repos that are at the core of several large OS projects but are private for business concerns).

-Github provides an easy metric to see what most of my work is. I can see that 45% of my work is done in Python, and maybe the rest in front-end tech. That would be useful information to an employer if I apply to an Obj-C position.

Actually the work I am most proud of is in my side-projects, which I would
much rather employers go on and interact with rather than scour over the
github repo. Posted above is not just something I want, but something I see
much more value in for Github to become a more friendly intermediary between
employer/employee.

~~~
gaadd33
> They are assuming I don't contribute to Open Source in any way (I contribute
> to private repos that are at the core of several large OS projects but are
> private for business concerns).

How are those open source? Or are they open source but not open to third party
contributions? Or does development not take place on github? Just curious
since if the code isn't public I'm curious how it's considered open source.

~~~
Ryel
I explained it poorly.

When we can't afford to keep building a feature, we release it as open source
and reintegrate it eventually.

------
petercooper
None of the reports I've seen mention this, but Chris was the CEO before Tom
(and became CTO to focus on product) so is already very experienced in the
role :-) [http://www.quora.com/GitHub/Why-is-Chris-Wanstrath-no-
longer...](http://www.quora.com/GitHub/Why-is-Chris-Wanstrath-no-longer-the-
CEO-of-GitHub)

~~~
than
I see Zach just responded to his own answer pointing out that the reverse of
2012 is true again.

------
stonemetal
For those of us who are business ignorant, what is the difference between
President and CEO? What are the typical responsibilities of each and such?

~~~
iambateman
It's different for every business but typically a CEO is the visionary,
strategic leader of the company while the president leads the day-to-day
operations.

If Github started selling insurance, there's a good chance they would have a
president for Github Code and a president for Github Insurance. They wouldn't
have two CEO's, though.

~~~
majelix
> while the president leads the day-to-day operations.

How would you characterize the COO then?

~~~
erichocean
COOs _manage_ the day-to-day operations.

~~~
seunosewa
What's the difference between "leading" day to day operations and "managing"
them?

~~~
goldenkey
I know SC2 is probably a poor example but it fits very well here. It's the
difference between managing a team strategy in an RTS versus looking at the
individual unit deaths/spawns, types of units, etc.

------
spikels
As soon as Tom becomes President he gets a Secret Service detail with dark
sunglasses! That animated gif is hilarious.

~~~
quaunaut
It would've been a bit funnier if suddenly his half of the gif was transported
to the Github Oval Office replica[1].

1\. [http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2013/09/07/githubs-new-
offi...](http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2013/09/07/githubs-new-office-
includes-a-replica-of-the-oval-office/#!sOEwr)

~~~
joshschreuder
Is there one person that gets to work in there, or do they rotate it?

~~~
holman
Typically that's where Haley sits, who is typically the person you'll first
meet when you're visiting or if you're dealing with some logistics with the SF
office.

(As an aside, the idea behind the Oval Office as a visitor's reception is to
turn the notion on its head a little bit. We've all been to companies where
the reception area is just an afterthought, and you're stuck awkwardly
standing in the middle of an open floor, not knowing what to do next. Our Oval
is a tongue-in-cheek jab at that, and an attempt to make things a little more,
well, _interesting_ while you're waiting for a GitHubber to meet you.)

~~~
haacked
To add to what Holman said, at most companies the receptionist is considered
unimportant, and is treated as such.

GitHub turns that on its head. Haley sits at the president's desk and is
entrusted with people's first experience with GitHub's HQ. She's an important
part of our culture. It's an big responsibility and a position deserving
respect (as all positions are).

------
guynamedloren
I love how this is tagged as "New Features". Oh GitHub :)

~~~
aragot
What did you want it to be? A bug?

------
_zen
I'm looking forward to GitHub branching out beyond software. Revision control
for business, academia, etc.

~~~
vonseel
I read this imagining a git reset on actual people. Thanks for the laugh :)

------
aashaykumar92
We can easily expect GitHub to continue its exponential growth. The timing
seems perfect to me...Chris will take on a role that will require him to
ensure that the product remains excellent and will implement the innovation
that Tom will be responsible for. Both suit their styles.

------
bhouston
I love Github, but they need to build out more serious features into their
issue tracker for it to be useful as a software estimation tool. Specifically
I need:

* Time estimation.

* GRANTT charts.

~~~
raganwald
GRANNT Chart: A Grantt chart is a type of bar chart that illustrates a project
schedule. Grantt charts illustrate the start and finish dates of the terminal
elements and summary elements of a project, such that completion of the
project qualifies the team for a research and development grant.

Serious answer: Issues are not--to my knowledge--a software estimation tool. I
have worked for decades in estimation-oriented development environments, and
in my (anecdotal) experience, it is a mistake to use the same tool for both
estimation and delivery.

It is seductive for them to be the same thing, as you can feed actual times
back into your project, but the conclusion I've drawn is that the estimate
reflects a kind of "interface" visible to the outside world, while the issues
reflect an "implementation" visible to the team.

When they are the same thing, you end up doing a lot of work fiddling with the
estimate to keep it congruent with the internal tasks, even when that
congruence is not relevant to the delivery date(s).

I realize that this is heterodoxy.

~~~
heartbreak
Isn't this type of chart a GANTT chart without the "R" character?

~~~
llimllib
(He was making a joke. GRANTT -> R&D Grant)

#jokesAreLikeFrogs

~~~
raganwald
And when you poke it with a stick, it falls apart. GANTT isn't an acronym, the
chart was invented by Henry Gantt:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gantt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gantt)

------
bfe
I don't understand how a company could operate for a few months without
publicly acknowledging who is really the CEO.

I hope they use a "fork the CEO role" button.

~~~
phillmv
I'm curious: to whom does this matter?

The title is a formality, their organization is notoriously flat and being co-
founders they probably don't make major initiatives without the other's
approval anyways. If anything they're probably just swapping "who sits in the
spotlight for this year".

And when you head a tech-oriented company, the difference between CTO and CEO
is probably negligible anyways.

~~~
bfe
I think Tom and Chris are doing a fantastic job running and growing github.
I'm just curious how this idea of trading CEO roles without making it public
for a while works in practice. I think it could potentially matter to their
employees, along the lines Ben Horowitz discussed in his post, "Shared
Command" [1] - different situation, but analogous potential muddling of the
chain of command.

Obviously some companies with both a CEO and a President can be amazingly
successful [2], but tend to still be clear about who is ultimately in charge.
It's not that I doubt Tom and Chris share a vision for github and clearly
communicate and execute on that vision together; I just wonder when and how
that model might hit its limits.

1\. [http://bhorowitz.com/2013/07/03/shared-
command/](http://bhorowitz.com/2013/07/03/shared-command/)

2\.
[http://www.spacex.com/about/leadership](http://www.spacex.com/about/leadership)

------
hardwaresofton
Least boring upper-management change announcement I have seen all year. More
things should be done with gifs.

------
maaku
I thought GitHub was a flat organization?

------
shmerl
Why are they using GIF for video, instead of a proper video file in the video
tag?

~~~
frandroid
It's not worth invoking a flash container for 4 seconds of video.

~~~
shmerl
Did I say anything about Flash? I was talking about a video tag. And are you
saying that a 4 seconds video in the video tag will be less efficient than an
img tag with an animated GIF?

Personally I see no point in using GIFs, unless on a site which allows
embedding images, but not videos. On a site which you control, video tag works
just fine.

~~~
alexcroox
I think they can spend the following required time on better things:

\- Deal with cross browser inconsistencies with html5 video.

\- Create a poster image for the video

\- Save the video format in mp4, ogg, webm

\- Save out and build flash alternative for older browsers

...

...

\- Realize that a gif probably would have been the best option for this post.

~~~
shmerl
I'd simply:

\- ignore older browsers (today practically all browsers support the video
tag, caring about older browsers in this context is like caring about IE6,
i.e. it's bad).

\- stick with a compromise solution (H.264, yeah that's sad, but until Daala
will come this mess will remain, but now Firefox already supports H.264
easily, so it's not a problem anymore). If the space allows it, I wouldn't
mind encoding in both WebM and MP4, just for the sake of supporting free
formats.

------
coreymgilmore
free private repos?

------
tomphoolery
The gif is LOL.

------
Ryel
Is the sky falling?

