Welcome to the Eternal September of open source. Here's what we plan to do for maintainers. - The GitHub Blog

Try GitHub Copilot CLI

Attend GitHub Universe

Search

Ashley Wolf·@ashleywolf

February 12, 2026

Updated February 13, 2026

7 minutes

Share:

Open collaboration runs on trust. For a long time, that trust was protected by a natural, if imperfect filter: friction.

If you were on Usenet in 1993, you’ll remember that every September a flood of new university students would arrive online, unfamiliar with the norms, and the community would patiently onboard them. Then mainstream dial-up ISPs became popular and a continuous influx of new users came online. It became the September that never ended.

Today, open source is experiencing its own Eternal September. This time, it’s not just new users. It’s the sheer volume of contributions.

When the cost to contribute drops

In the era of mailing lists contributing to open source required real effort. You had to subscribe, lurk, understand the culture, format a patch correctly, and explain why it mattered. The effort didn’t guarantee quality, but it filtered for engagement. Most contributions came from someone who had genuinely engaged with the project.

It also excluded people. The barrier to entry was high. Many projects worked hard to lower it in order to make open source more welcoming.

A major shift came with the pull request. Hosting projects on GitHub, using pull requests, and labeling “Good First Issues” reduced the friction needed to contribute. Communities grew and contributions became more accessible.

That was a good thing.

But friction is a balancing act. Too much keeps people and their ideas out, too little friction can strain the trust open source depends on.

Today, a pull request can be generated in seconds. Generative AI makes it easy for people to produce code, issues, or security reports at scale. The cost to create has dropped but the cost to review has not.

It’s worth saying: most contributors are acting in good faith. Many want to help projects they care about. Others are motivated by learning, visibility, or the career benefits of contributing to widely used open source. Those incentives aren’t new and they aren’t wrong.

The challenge is what happens when low-quality contributions arrive at scale. When volume accelerates faster than review capacity, even well-intentioned submissions can overwhelm maintainers. And when that happens, trust, the foundation of open collaboration, starts to strain.

The new scale of noise

It is tempting to frame “low-quality contributions” or “AI slop” contributions as a unique recent phenomenon. It isn’t. Maintainers have always dealt with noisy inbound.

The Linux kernel operates under a “web of trust” philosophy and formalized its SubmittingPatches guide and introduced the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) in 2004 for a reason.

Mozilla and GNOME built formal triage systems around the reality that most incoming bug reports needed filtering before maintainers invested deeper time.

Automated scanners: Long before GenAI, maintainers dealt with waves of automated security and code quality reports from commercial and open source scanning tools.

The question from maintainers has often been the same: “Are you really trying to help me, or just help yourself?“

Just because a tool—whether a static analyzer or an LLM—makes it easy to generate a report or a fix, it doesn’t mean that contribution is valuable to the project. The ease of creation often adds a burden to the maintainer because there is an imbalance of benefit. The contributor maybe gets the credit (or the CVE, or the visibility), while the maintainer gets the maintenance burden.

Maintainers are feeling that directly. For example:

curl ended its bug bounty program after AI-generated security reports exploded, each taking hours to validate.

Projects like Ghostty are moving to invitation-only contribution models, requiring discussion before accepting code contributions.

Multiple projects are adopting explicit rules about AI-generated contributions.

These are rational responses to an imbalance.

What we’re doing at GitHub

At GitHub, we aren’t just watching this happen. Maintainer sustainability is foundational to open source, and foundational to us. As the home of open source, we have a responsibility to help you manage what comes through the door.

We are approaching this from multiple angles: shipping immediate relief now, while building toward longer-term, systemic improvements. Some of this is about tooling. Some is about creating clearer signals so maintainers can decide where to spend their limited time.

Features we’ve already shipped

Repo-level pull request controls : Gives maintainers the option to limit pull request creation to collaborators or disable pull requests entirely. While the...