Most of the people who run Open Source projects are mortal. Recent history shows us that they will all eventually die, or get bored, or win the lottery, or get sick, or be conscripted, or lose their mind.
If you've ever visited a foreign country's national history museum, I guarantee you've read this little snippet:
King Whatshisface was a wise and noble ruler who bought peace and prosperity to all the land.
Upon his death, his heirs waged bloody war over rightful succession which plunged the country into a hundred years of hardship.
The great selling point of democracy is that it allows for the peaceful transition of power. Most modern democracies have rendered civil war almost unthinkable. Sure, you might not like the guy currently in charge, but there are well established mechanisms to limit their power and kick them out if they misbehave. If they die in office, there's an obvious and understood hierarchy for who follows them.
Most Open Source projects start small - just someone in their spare room tinkering for fun. Unexpectedly, they grow into a behemoth which now powers half the world. These mini-empires are fragile. The most popular method of governance is the Benevolent Dictator For Life model. The founder of the project controls everything. But, as I've said before, BDFL only works if the D is genuinely B. Otherwise the FL becomes FML.
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.
Which is why I am delighted that the Mastodon project has shown a better way to behave.
In "The Future is Ours to Build - Together" they describe perfectly how to gracefully and peacefully transfer power. There are no VCs bringing in their MBA-brained lackeys to extract maximum value while leaving a rotting husk. No one is seizing community assets and jealously hoarding them. Opaque financial structures and convoluted agreements are prominent in their absence.
Eugen Rochko, the outgoing CEO, has a remarkably honest blog post about the transition. I wouldn't wish success on my worst enemy. He talks plainly about the reality of dealing with the pressure and how he might have been a limiting factor on Mastodon's growth. That's a far step removed from the ego-centric members of The Cult of The Founder with their passionate belief in the Divine Right of Kings.
Does your tiny OSS script need a succession plan? Probably not. Do you have several thousand NPM installs per day? It might be worth working out who you can share responsibility with if you are unexpectedly raptured. Do you think that your project is going to last for a thousand years? Build an organisation which won't crumble the moment its founder is arrested for their predatory behaviour on tropical islands.
I'm begging project leaders everywhere - please read up on the social contract and the consent of the governed. Or, if reading is too woke, just behave like grown-ups rather than squabbling tweenagers.
It is a sad inevitability that, eventually, we will all be nothing but memories. The bugs that we create live after us, the patches are oft interrèd with our code. Let it be so with all Open Source projects.