The Zulip Foundation(blog.zulip.com) |
The Zulip Foundation(blog.zulip.com) |
As a huge fan of Zulip the app and the team behind it, I have intensely mixed feelings about the AI-ness of it all. But this does seem to be the most responsible way forward.
Zulip needed to be able to outlast its founders to be a truly sustainable project. The way they've focused on building up their contribution pipeline, the effort they spend on mentoring new developers, it has all built towards that being possible.
https://blog.zulip.com/2021/12/17/why-zulip-will-stand-the-t...
It seems like just yesterday that the core team started experimenting with using Claude to work on Zulip, which maybe adds to the surprise of this announcement. But I don't begrudge those individuals their choices. Ten+ years is a long time to work on any project.
https://blog.zulip.com/2025/11/24/zulip-ten-years/
Here's to the Zulip project continuing to maintain its engineering excellence and its community principles for the next ten years.
Was recently attempting to build the server in a Yocto recipe which means downloading sources for all dependencies ahead of time. The biggest challenge was the pip dependency and transitive dependency list. Each entry here is not only an additional packaging requirement, but another ongoing obligation to monitor for CVEs.
Would love to see Zulip server as a golang binary.
Not trying to be cynical … but announcing on a Friday afternoon is typically the operating mode for when you need to announce something that you do not want to get noticed.
I can only speculate this weeks Bun/Rust news might have played into how this Zulip news is being handled.
To be clear, excited for Tim & team.
Fun fact: The original blog post announcing the Zulip Open Source project (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10279961) was published on a Friday and I think got more attention because of that choice of date than it would have otherwise.
I've been a happy Zulip user (and realm admin) for 13 years: it's one of my favorite pieces of software, and I use it daily. My understanding is these changes will be very good for Zulip's long-term stability and success.
(I'm a volunteer member of the new foundation's advisory board.)
I highly recommend Zulip to anybody who faces the problem that the concept of threads and channels is not a good fit to their mental model of tasks and groups in teams.
I think it's expected to be enabled in the mobile apps in the next couple weeks.
I do like our current "organized team chat" quite a bit better than the original "group chat", which would often result in confusion with WhatsApp and its equivalents.
I always think of it as being halfway between those and more traditional forums (PHPBB, discourse, etc).
When introducing new people to it, I like the topics to email threads, as they also have a subject line and replies.
It also gels with the "inbox" part of Zulip's UI.
Where do I find a list of employers using zulip?
Like most large projects, we triage every new PR, and make decisions about which ones to invest what level of maintainer time into. We try pretty hard to efficiently review visibly high-quality PRs and those from highly engaged contributors who are visibly learning from the feedback we give.
Review latencies vary for myriad reasons. For example, when preparing to publish a major release like Zulip 12.0, there's about a month wherein we mostly only review PRs that might go into that release.
Historically, the great majority of PRs in zulip/zulip have been reviewed by two maintainers before being merged. First a "maintainer review", and then a second "integration review" by me. My reviewing everything is a quite unusual practice for a project of this scale, and I would not recommend anyone else try it. But it has worked for us, and everyone appreciated my having the complete context that comes with this practice.
All of our maintainers are very good at reviewing Zulip work. Thus, the great majority of those integration reviews involve my suggesting readability/documentation improvements, or merging the PR with just a comment thanking everyone who helped. So we're making the obvious adjustment wherein the other longtime maintainers also do integration reviews.
We've been writing a great deal of nice process documentation to support this plan (For example: https://github.com/zulip/zulip/pull/39290 details how I think about integration review, and https://github.com/zulip/zulip/pull/39229 greatly improves our database migration documentation).
I plan to hold regular office hours for more active project maintainers to use my time as they wish. It is likely that some of that time will be used doing reviews.
I hope this context helps!
It’s okay to make money and change up your career! But this communication is bizarre.
most others you need to go an extra step to make the messages public, like mailing list archives.
there is this: https://github.com/zulip/zulip-archive
i haven't used it, just saying that solutions exist.
and with the constant hammering of sites by AI bots you probably don't want them hitting a dynamic message interface but prefer a static copy.
I cannot quite agree to this. But nonetheless I wish good luck to the Zulip project.
The compensation for a senior developer at Anthropic is also certainly much better than a FOSS nonprofit - I'm sure that had nothing to do with his reasoning.
Sad to see yet another longtime open source developer begin working for AI companies that disregard free software licenses for their training and enable the deluge of low quality AI pull requests that waste maintainers' time.
One thing I'd like to understand better: how does the Foundation intend to keep its mandate narrow? The Mozilla comparison in the post is one I find cuts both ways... technically excellent product, foundation that drifted considerably from "make the browser good."
The advisory board has some names I associate with community governance work beyond the purely technical. That's not necessarily a problem, but I'd love to hear how the Foundation thinks about scope creep, and whether there's anything structural that keeps the focus on shipping great software.
I think the question presupposes that we solve the hardest problem for a new non-profit: Funding. We would be very lucky if Zulip with 1% of Mozilla's funding; we could do so so much with that scale of resources.
The biggest risk to Zulip's ability to succeed over the next few years is not risk of spending time on side projects. It's risk of not having the financial resources even to hire remarkable people who want to take a big pay cut to work on Zulip.
it's pretty funny
When politics gets involved, you loose all the talents ;)
They don't mind, they have their LLM code monkeys to handle rewrites automagically
After all, what's a society, if not just a bunch of soulless servants
I share this because I hope it makes it clear that I have a vested interest in Zulip's future. And I'm happy about this news; I'm confident Zulip will continue to improve for many years.
Also, for those who don't know: Zulip was initially a for-profit startup, which was acquired by Dropbox in 2014. Tim then went to great lengths to get Dropbox to later open source it, and allow him to found a new company (the one that was today donated to the new nonprofit foundation) to continue work on Zulip. I can't think of any other cases where a founder has gone to such great lengths to do right by their users.
That seems substantially better than the usual approach (of either an acquihire leading to an immediate shutdown or an acquisition leading to an inevitable "our incredible journey" shutdown later).
There are 220 people from all over the world who have contributed 20 or more commits to Zulip, and thousands more who've contributed code, volunteer translations, ideas, thoughtful questions, and in so many other ways.
Personally, I find remarks like this to be extremely disrespectful to all of those wonderful people and their open-source work.
This idea that devs owe their continued free service to an open source project they released in the past is a crazy one.
The parent complains about Anthropic hiring devs working on interesting projects, just because they have enough money for that.
> You can’t annihilate a project by hiring its devs away.
I also disagree with that: the codebase is still out there, but what is "a project"? Many (most?) open source projects stop evolving when their devs go away.
The founders take the money, and when the AI bubble pops we'll be left holding the ashes.
There are many reasons to change job. The pay is always one of them (if you don't work for money, it's not called a job, is it?).
> join Anthropic because of its remarkable commitment to the responsible development of AI for the long-term benefit of humanity.
Obviously, it's better to believe that what Anthropic is doing is good for humanity when you decide to go working for them. But it is at the very least debatable.
So generous, helping fix the problem they created. The fire department who went around setting fires.
To be clear, i’m not coming for Tim, or anyone else who moved from OSS to closed when it was the right choice for them. Get paid! I have written code for pay and for free - getting paid is nicer. But anthropic isn’t exactly a bastion of open source community, and my default assumption is anybody who joins a massive frontier llm company will be working on closed source projects.
Not at the same scale as this, but I've seen friends deliberately choose to get paid less, perhaps much less money, because they wanted to do something. Video games for example, does not pay well, but it may be your passion. Banking pays very well, but it's hard to find any significant emotional involvement.
You can probably argue that's what I did, but it's complicated because I'm hard work. I can't stand debt but I also don't like the feeling of not knowing how to spend all the money. I can say that it's surprisingly hard to get people who are hiring you to accept that (a) the number you put in their mandatory "previous salary" box is correct and yet (b) yes you did understand that they have fixed pay scales and can't possibly match that.
Personally, I think this is great and I’m going to send this to my boss who might have to make a similar decision someday. It seems to me like they could have just sold the product to them but went to lengths to keep it independent; that’s the type of thing we should encourage.
No offense intended but sometimes this type of comment sounds like the other side of the AI psychosis coin, like an anti AI psychosis.