Is GitHub quietly becoming the next Discord for dev communities? #176166
Replies: 6 comments 4 replies
-
|
This is a fascinating discussion and a question many in the community are thinking about. You've hit on a core debate: Synchronous vs. Asynchronous collaboration. In my opinion, GitHub's greatest strength is its asynchronous nature.
GitHub Discussions (like this very post) is the perfect middle ground. It's more casual and conversational than a formal "Issue," but it remains asynchronous, threaded, and permanently archived alongside the code. I believe GitHub is better off perfecting its world-class asynchronous collaboration tools and focusing on deep integrations with real-time apps (like Slack/Discord integrations), rather than trying to become one itself. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks for this fantastic breakdown! You put it perfectly by framing it as a "Synchronous vs. Asynchronous" debate. The point about real-time chat becoming an "information silo" really hits home—it's the exact problem I was worried about. I completely agree that GitHub's strength lies in its async nature, and focusing on better integrations is the right path forward. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Type: 💡 Feedback / Idea Observation: Proposal / Question: Pros: 🔄 Reduces context switching between tools ⚡ Faster collaboration and immediate feedback 🌐 Could make GitHub a central hub for open source projects Cons: 🧹 Might clutter GitHub’s clean, async-focused workflow 🌀 Could fragment discussions and increase noise 💬 Platforms like Discord/Slack already handle live communication effectively Conclusion / Opinion: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I really appreciate you structuring your feedback this way! The clear Pros and Cons list makes the trade-offs crystal clear. It's helpful to see it laid out so neatly, and it reinforces the idea that while real-time chat is tempting, it could introduce more problems than it solves. Your conclusion about improving integrations seems like the perfect middle ground. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
This comment was marked as off-topic.
-
|
Thank you for chiming in! It’s great to see we’re thinking along the same lines. You summed it up well—the goal is to avoid cluttering GitHub’s focused design. Your idea of finding the "best balance" through better integrations instead of building a native feature seems to be the growing consensus here, and I definitely agree. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Opinion: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
That’s a really interesting point — GitHub Discussions has definitely evolved beyond simple Q&A. Many open source communities now use it for ideation, project updates, and even onboarding, so it does feel more like a lightweight community platform. Adding real-time chat or voice could make collaboration smoother — especially for things like quick feedback loops, contributor coordination, or hackathon-style events. It would reduce the friction of switching between GitHub and other platforms like Discord or Slack. On the flip side, part of GitHub’s strength is its async-first workflow. Discussions, issues, and pull requests all encourage thoughtful, documented conversation that’s easy to reference later. Real-time chat might make things feel noisier or harder to archive — especially for large projects. Maybe a middle ground would be optional integrations: lightweight, opt-in chat threads or real-time “rooms” linked to repos, so teams that want synchronous tools can use them, while others can stay async. Curious how others feel — would real-time chat help you collaborate better, or would it just add noise to your workflow? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
That's a great way to said it. But I think your "middle ground" suggestion is a really elegant solution. Optional, opt-in chat rooms or threads linked directly to a repository feel like the perfect compromise. It would empower the teams that need real-time collaboration without forcing that change onto projects that thrive on a deliberate, asynchronous workflow. It respects that different communities have different needs. Thanks for adding such a constructive idea to the discussion! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
🕒 Discussion Activity Reminder 🕒 This Discussion has been labeled as dormant by an automated system for having no activity in the last 60 days. Please consider one the following actions: 1️⃣ Close as Out of Date: If the topic is no longer relevant, close the Discussion as 2️⃣ Provide More Information: Share additional details or context — or let the community know if you've found a solution on your own. 3️⃣ Mark a Reply as Answer: If your question has been answered by a reply, mark the most helpful reply as the solution. Note: This dormant notification will only apply to Discussions with the Thank you for helping bring this Discussion to a resolution! 💬 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Discussion Type
Product Feedback
Discussion Content
Lately, GitHub Discussions feels like more than just a Q&A board — it’s turning into a full-blown community hub.
Maintainers are using it for brainstorming, onboarding, even casual updates. Sounds a lot like what we do on Discord or Slack, right?
So here’s the thought:
If collaboration, feedback, and community are all living here already, what’s stopping GitHub from adding real-time chat or voice rooms?
Wouldn’t that make it the ultimate all-in-one space for open source teams — code, chat, docs, all under one roof?
Or do you think that would just clutter GitHub’s clean workflow and kill its focus?
Curious where everyone stands on this — do we need native chat here, or is GitHub better off staying async-only?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions