The point about money attracting the wrong kind of people is (I think) accurate.  When a recently minted MBA looks at Github as a great career option, it&#x27;s probably too late.<p>Ironically, that&#x27;s why the money was invested in the first place, to be able to afford people like that, because the investors believe that creating a gamified system for money-driven people will result in a payout.<p>Github could have continued to grow organically instead of taking $100M.  Since the $100M there hasn&#x27;t been any significant new functionality on the web version of the site, and there have been fewer blog posts from the early team of people who many of us met and respected.<p>I assumed something was awry when Kneath left, he was a symbol of the culture at GH that was a legit, bootstrapped startup culture.  He loved the product and evangelized it in a way that was clearly a labor of love.<p>The sexual-harassment stuff is unfortunate, but organizations of primates have things like that happen now and then, it&#x27;s just rare that the victims decide to go public.  This does not excuse it but it doesn&#x27;t necessary say anything about the culture (I&#x27;ve seen female-founded, progressive firms tolerate very bad behavior from male employees).<p>Maybe Github should split into a corporate division and an open source division.  The OSS division could make all of its work and decision making distributed and public, and the corporate division could do business development and attack new market opportunities.