Announcing new open source releases, exploring projects, sharing how we approach FOSS, and supporting communities around the world.
- Tweets2.4K
- Following145
- Followers82.2K
- Likes813
ALT Google Open Source Research card 01/04: "How Much Does It Cost to Use Open Source Software?" Subheadline: "Open source is 'free as in puppies, not free as in beer.' Beyond upstream maintenance, we studied the engineering effort required to use and update OSS packages at Google." Features portrait of Sophia Vargas, Google Open Source, with two bullets: "Evaluates software engineering hours required to update OSS packages within Google" and "Shares observational findings, complexity indicators, and study limitations." Study Overview box: "How long do package updates take—and which metrics predict relative effort?" Footer: Inside the post: Research questions, update complexity observations, study scope, and limitations. goo.gle/cost-of-oss
ALT Google Open Source Research card 02/04: "What the Study Examined & Observed in Practice." (1) RQ1 — How Long Do Package Updates Take? (<= 4 Hours vs. Long Tail): "We evaluated how long it takes an engineer (not an upstream maintainer) to update an OSS package at Google: most take 4 hours or less, while a long tail takes days to months." (2) RQ2 — What Predicts Update Complexity? (Stronger Effort Indicators): "Results suggested local patches and customization, number of package dependencies, and number of upstream contributors were better indicators of update complexity than other metrics evaluated." (3) Observed Comparison — Package Age & Internal Usage Profile (Inconclusive Results): "Analysis did not yield any conclusive results regarding package age or how many teams were using that package internally. While upstream breaking changes can significantly impact update complexity, this was not detectable by package age or version alone."
ALT Google Open Source Research card 03/04: "Survey Context & Study Limitations." Top callout: "2024 Employee Survey Chart (346 Respondents): Top-Ranked Characteristics Making Updates Take Longer — 1st: Google-specific patches or customization (49%); 2nd: Upstream breaking changes (37%); 3rd: Google breaking changes (31%)." Four-box grid of study limitations: (1) Business Priority Sampling: Designed around existing data to minimize the impact to engineering roadmaps. (2) Did Not Dictate Tooling: Did not specify tools (including genAI features) or isolate specific tool impacts. (3) Sample Bias Towards Go: Data had significant bias towards Go; future studies encouraged on language ecosystems. (4) Only Active Projects: Focused on active packages.
ALT Google Open Source Research card 04/04 for X/Twitter (@GoogleOSS): "Explore the Approach & Full Research Report." Top box ("What's in the Blog Post & Research Paper"): Author Sophia Vargas (@sophia_iv), Google Open Source; Paper: "How much does it cost to maintain a copy of an OSS package?"; Contents: Study design and overview of topline results; Scope: Observational study of internal OSS package updates. Middle box ("Research Questions Explored"): 1. RQ1: How long does it take for an engineer (not an upstream maintainer) to update an open source software package at Google? 2. RQ2: Can complexity metrics predict the relative effort or amount of time required to update a package at Google? CTA: First reply below: https://goo.gle/cost-of-oss
ALT Card 1 of 4 (Title Hook with Illustration): Google Open Source banner for "Introducing the Elephant-Goldfish Model Plugin for Design-Driven AI Coding" featuring the official minimalist split mark logo with a blue elephant profile and an orange goldfish profile. By the Elephant-Goldfish Model (EGM) Team: Brian Suchy, Jim Quinn, Elise Ewing, and Dave Rensin (Google). Subheadline: Pure AI coding speed without structured design auto-scales mistakes. Meet the open source framework keeping human judgment in the loop. Highlights: (1) Separates long-horizon design (Elephants) from stateless validation (Goldfish); (2) Used daily by thousands of Google engineers in production; (3) Apache 2.0 plugin: Markdown rules and subagent personas. Core principle quote: "Design is the new code — human judgment is the only artifact that truly matters."
ALT Card 2 of 4 (The 3-Phase EGM Lifecycle — From "No-Code" Brainstorming to Stateless Spec Validation): Stacked breakdown of the 3 co-design phases automated by the plugin: (1) Phase 01 (egm-brainstorm) — Long-Horizon "No-Code" Session: Growing the Elephant. Load system context and adhere to a strict "No Code" rule where the AI interviews you to co-design features, debate trade-offs, and challenge assumptions. (2) Phase 02 (egm-draft) — Executable Markdown Blueprint: Drafting with the Elephant. Iteratively draft a Markdown design spec covering problem definition, architecture, alternatives, and exact files to change. (3) Phase 03 (egm-review) — Zero-Context Adversarial Critics: The Goldfish Protocol. Spawn fresh, stateless Goldfish subagents with zero blind spots to probe the spec for ambiguity and logical gaps.
ALT Card 3 of 4 (Inside Phase 3 — How Stateless AI Reviewers Stress-Test Your Design Spec): Top cards contrast The Elephant (Long-Horizon Context-Rich Architect holding end-to-end architectural vision, project memory, and micro-decisions with zero code written) vs. The Goldfish (Zero-Context Stateless Skeptical Critic starting fresh with zero shared blind spots or sunk-cost bias to interrogate the Markdown spec objectively). Bottom terminal (egm-review — 3-Step Goldfish Validation Sequence): Step 1 Comprehension Check (naive reader summarizes spec back; flags ambiguous architecture or intent); Step 2 Antagonistic Review (skeptical personas probe edge cases; surfaces hidden dependencies and logical gaps); Step 3 Implementation Readiness (strict Go/No-Go gate verifying file paths, data structures, and signatures); Output: Validated Markdown Spec.
ALT Card 4 of 4 (X/Twitter Action Card — Explore the Open Source EGM Plugin & Rules on GitHub): Top box lists What is in the Apache 2.0 GitHub Repository: Authors Brian Suchy, Jim Quinn, Elise Ewing, and Dave Rensin (EGM Team); Repository github.com/google/elephant-goldfish-model (Apache 2.0); Included customizable Markdown rules, subagent personas, and workflows; Built for Google Antigravity (more IDEs upcoming). Middle box lists How to Get Started & Contribute: (1) Install the EGM plugin in Antigravity to automate Phases 1–3; (2) Customize validation rules and antagonistic Goldfish reviewer personas; (3) Shift from code micromanager to executive architectural reviewer. Bottom call to action: Read the Blog Post & Explore the GitHub Repo at https://goo.gle/elephant-goldfish-plugin (first reply below). Footer: @GoogleOSS.
ALT Stage photo from the Maintainer Roundtable at AGNTCon + MCPCon Europe in Amsterdam. Five speakers sit on black chairs beneath a wall-mounted screen titled "Maintainer Roundtable" displaying circular headshots and logos for Gartner, Anthropic, Solo.io, Google, and OpenAI. From left to right: moderator Nitish Tyagi (Gartner) speaking into a handheld microphone, David Soria Parra (Anthropic), Idit Levine (Solo.io), Kuba Herczyński (Google), and Nick Cooper (OpenAI).
