Making Issue Tracking, Pull Request, and other UI integrations with Git sound bad is weird to me. I don't think the "profit" motive has anything to with it. Whe

Making Issue Tracking, Pull Request, and other UI integrations with Git sound bad is weird to me. I don't think the "profit" motive has anything to with it. Whether free or for profit, I want integrated solutions, and integrated solutions tend to be more centralized. Think of the watering hole analogy, developers who want to collaborate will eventually find some common location to assemble. If the features of this location are superior, or it has more popular projects, more developers will assemble, in a positive feedback loop, eventually this site will become a large, popular place for people to collaborate -- free or not. This behavior use to happen long before commercial activity was on the internet, back in the pre-Web listserv/majordomo/bitnet days. Certain people would become powerful gatekeepers purely by the size of their audience and the positive feedback effects of having a large audience. That makes the central proposition that some kind of regulation is needed somewhat troublesome. I mean, take a large open source project like Linux or FreeBSD. A small group of maintainers, or a single dictatorial maintainer with veto power, wields enormous control over API and features that are included. If the maintainer gods decide not to support your hardware and refuse patches, does the government have to step in because it puts you at a disadvantage? Levels of centralization in all things is probably inevitable. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there isn't some mathematics in network theory about scaling and hierarchy that would probably show it's inevitable -- even if you start out with something completely flat and fully connected graph, and without unequal incentives. Basically, people with large audiences have larger power, whether it's commercial power, or even just social popularity.