When GitLab CEO Bill Staples announced “Act 2” a few days ago, many of the headlines centered on the plain stuff. Layoffs. Restructuring. Geographic pullbacks. AI brokers. Effectivity. The same old assortment of phrases that now appear obligatory every time a software program firm declares its plans for the agentic period.
However I believe the true story is greater than that.
The actual query is whether or not GitLab can reinvent itself for the following period of software program improvement with out dropping the cultural infrastructure that made it one of many defining corporations of the DevOps motion within the first place.
That will sound dramatic, however for these of us who’ve watched GitLab since its earliest days, this isn’t simply one other software program firm making one other AI pivot. GitLab was completely different. It represented one thing completely different. And judging by the reactions from clients, former staff and practitioners throughout the trade, individuals instinctively perceive that one thing extra important is going on right here.
To know why, it’s important to return to the start.
When GitLab first burst onto the DevOps scene, it felt like a breath of recent air. This was an organization that got here out of Y Combinator with what sounded on the time like a borderline loopy concept. Not simply open supply software program. An open supply firm.
Founder Sid Sijbrandij and the early GitLab group constructed an organization that was virtually an open guide. Their handbook was public. Their org charts had been public. Their roadmap was public. Their pondering was public. You might usually see who labored there, what they labored on, who they reported to and the place the corporate was heading subsequent.
In some circumstances, you might even see compensation bands and hiring rationale. In an trade the place most corporations operated behind rigorously managed PR partitions, GitLab was radically clear.
And DevOps individuals cherished it.
They purchased into the concept that software program improvement and supply might be collaborative, iterative and community-driven. They contributed code. They evangelized the platform. They trusted the corporate sufficient to assist construct the product itself.
That belief mattered.
As a result of DevOps was by no means nearly tooling. Regardless of what some distributors ultimately turned it into, DevOps at its core was about decreasing friction between people making an attempt to construct and ship software program. It was about transparency, suggestions loops, documentation, iteration and shared possession.
GitLab didn’t simply promote these concepts. For a very long time, it embodied them internally.
The corporate grew quickly, changing into one of many dominant DevOps platform suppliers out there. Because the trade advanced from DevOps into DevSecOps, GitLab was proper there serving to outline that transition, too. They ultimately turned the primary pure-play DevOps firm to go public. Certain, there have been already public corporations doing DevOps-related enterprise. However GitLab was completely different. GitLab was born DevOps-native.
And all by that progress, they stored delivery. Each month, new releases. New capabilities. New integrations. New performance.
It felt much less like a traditional enterprise software program firm and extra like a dwelling software program organism.
Numerous that tradition traces again to Sid himself. Past constructing GitLab, he helped pioneer the concept that remote-first, asynchronous, documentation-driven corporations may function at large scale. Lengthy earlier than distant work turned mainstream, GitLab was proving that distributed organizations may work if the techniques behind them had been designed deliberately sufficient.
Sadly, Sid’s journey additionally took a deeply private flip when he was recognized with most cancers. True to type, although, Sid approached it with the identical transparency and depth that characterised a lot of GitLab’s tradition. As he has described publicly, he basically “startup-ed” his most cancers battle, documenting the method, the selections, the remedies and the mindset behind it in outstanding element. Fortunately, that effort seems to have been profitable, and his story stays each brave and galvanizing for anybody dealing with critical well being challenges. Ultimately, Sid stepped away from day-to-day management to give attention to his well being whereas remaining concerned as government chair. You probably have not learn his account, it’s value spending a while on Sid Sijbrandij’s LinkedIn profile.
In some ways, that transition marked the symbolic finish of GitLab’s founder period.
However the firm stored shifting ahead with sturdy management throughout the group. Folks like Ashley Kramer, David DeSanto and lots of others helped proceed GitLab’s momentum and innovation cadence. The platform matured. The enterprise matured. The market matured.
And over time, GitLab additionally turned one thing else.
It turned a case examine in tradition as operational infrastructure.
That will sound summary, however my good friend Brendan O’Leary captured it effectively when he left GitLab in 2022 and later reflected on what made the company work.
In his glorious essay, “12 GitLab Classes”, Brendan described an organization whose values weren’t simply HR slogans hanging on partitions. They had been operational techniques. GitLab’s CREDIT framework, Collaboration, Outcomes, Effectivity, Range/Inclusion/Belonging, Iteration and Transparency, created the scaffolding that allowed a globally distributed software program group to perform.
That distinction issues.
As a result of software program organizations at scale should not simply expertise techniques. They’re social techniques. The tooling issues, however the belief mechanisms matter too. Documentation issues. Communication norms matter. Transparency issues. Psychological security issues. Shared possession issues.
These “smooth” techniques are sometimes the distinction between operational acceleration and operational chaos.
Which brings us again to Act 2.
Invoice Staples will not be some cartoon villain parachuted in from Wall Avenue to destroy GitLab tradition. That may be lazy evaluation. Staples has a long time of expertise operating enterprise software program organizations and developer-focused companies. He’s an skilled operator. He understands scale, execution and platform economics.
However he additionally comes from a special period and a special working custom than Sid.
And that distinction exhibits up within the language and framing of Act 2.
The announcement positions GitLab for the agentic period. AI brokers. Machine-assisted software program supply. Higher automation. Operational effectivity. Organizational restructuring. Geographic rationalization. Elevated leverage.
Actually, none of that is stunning.
Each software program firm of scale is making an attempt to determine what an AI-native future seems like. Each platform firm is making an attempt to find out how brokers change workflows, staffing, economics and buyer expectations. Each government group is staring on the identical mixture of investor strain, aggressive strain and technological disruption.
GitLab will not be distinctive there.
What is exclusive is how brazenly GitLab is speaking about it.
Most corporations would bury this type of transition inside sanitized earnings language and punctiliously lawyered company messaging. GitLab, true to its roots, nonetheless seems extra keen than most to let individuals see no less than a part of the equipment whereas the transformation is going on.
They’re nonetheless, no less than to some extent, an open guide.
That openness is one motive the response has been so intense.
A fast look by the Reddit dialogue round Act 2 reveals a practitioner group that’s removed from universally enthusiastic.
Some reactions give attention to value anxiousness round AI-driven improvement tooling. Others query whether or not the corporate is chasing progress or just utilizing AI language to justify workforce reductions. Others fear that GitLab dangers changing into one other consumption-meter platform the place operational unpredictability turns into a part of the enterprise mannequin.
One Reddit commenter wrote:
“That’s how you realize it’s not about progress, growth, enhancements, none of that. It’s AI washing for layoffs.”
One other added:
“We ended up selecting Claude Code due to how costly and unpredictable these prices are with Gitlab.”
And maybe probably the most attention-grabbing response was not even about AI itself, however about identification:
“It’s attention-grabbing that they’ve a really distinctive alternative to capitalize on pitching to org/companies, who’re very a lot feeling latest GitHub outages and the merge queue fiasco, and they’re selecting to grab this chance by shedding.”
Now, Reddit being cynical about company change is hardly breaking information. DevOps practitioners should not precisely recognized for blind optimism towards vendor messaging. However dismissing these reactions as mere negativity would miss one thing vital.
Operators can sense when the language of an organization adjustments.
And lots of longtime GitLab observers hear a shift taking place.
That’s the reason Brendan’s latest LinkedIn feedback resonated so strongly with individuals who have adopted GitLab for years. In reacting to Act 2, Brendan wrote:
“The query isn’t whether or not these targets are proper. It’s whether or not you may obtain them after eradicating the cultural scaffolding…”
That line cuts proper to the center of the problem.
As a result of GitLab’s tradition was not decorative. It was useful.
Transparency decreased friction. Documentation enabled asynchronous scale. Iteration accelerated supply. Shared context decreased organizational drag. CREDIT was not branding. It was infrastructure.
Brendan additionally wrote:
“Retiring Transparency as a core precept on the firm that actually constructed its identification on a public handbook? That’s the half that stings.”
Once more, this isn’t nostalgia speaking.
It’s a concern about institutional drift.
As with most profitable expertise corporations, GitLab is evolving. Startups grow to be platforms. Platforms grow to be public corporations. Public corporations ultimately face the pressures of operational scale, investor expectations and market shifts. The language adjustments. Priorities shift. Incentives evolve. Generally these transitions strengthen an organization. Generally they hole it out. Often, the end result lands someplace in between.
What makes GitLab significantly attention-grabbing proper now could be that this transition is going on on the actual second the software program trade itself is altering beneath it. DevOps is steadily evolving into AI-native software program operations. Builders are starting to work alongside brokers as a substitute of merely utilizing instruments. Platform engineering is shifting past inner developer portals towards orchestrating more and more automated workflows. Even the economics of software program platforms are altering as corporations experiment with consumption-based AI fashions as a substitute of conventional seat licensing.
GitLab didn’t create these trade shifts. Each main software program firm is making an attempt to navigate the identical terrain proper now. However as a result of GitLab has traditionally been extra clear than most, persons are getting a a lot clearer have a look at what that transition really seems like inside an actual firm making an attempt to adapt in actual time.
Paradoxically, most of the disciplines GitLab pioneered may very well grow to be extra vital in an AI-native world, not much less. Documentation. Transparency. Clear workflows. Shared context. Iteration. Async coordination. These are precisely the sorts of techniques organizations want when people more and more supervise distributed networks of brokers and automation.
Which is why this second feels so consequential.
GitLab could also be making an attempt to transition from an organization optimized round serving to people collaborate on software program into an organization optimized round orchestrating machine-assisted software program supply at scale.
That’s not a small pivot.
That may be a redefinition of what the corporate essentially is.
And but, regardless of all of the uncertainty, regardless of the layoffs, regardless of the skepticism and regardless of the comprehensible anxiousness, I nonetheless discover myself rooting for GitLab.
Partly as a result of I respect corporations keen to adapt as a substitute of pretending the world is standing nonetheless.
Partly as a result of I nonetheless assume GitLab represents most of the greatest instincts of the DevOps motion.
And partly as a result of even now, throughout what’s clearly a tough and disruptive transition, they’re nonetheless being extra clear than most corporations would ever dare to be.
That issues.
Particularly in an period the place so many expertise corporations conceal behind polished narratives whereas quietly making large organizational adjustments behind closed doorways.
Shimmy’s Take
Nothing stays static ceaselessly.
Not industries. Not applied sciences. Not corporations. Not cultures.
The GitLab of as we speak will not be the identical GitLab that first got here out of Y Combinator and captured the creativeness of the DevOps group. It most likely shouldn’t be. The world of software program improvement and supply has modified an excessive amount of for that.
Agentic AI goes to reshape software program organizations whether or not persons are snug with it or not. The economics, workflows and staffing fashions round software program improvement are already altering in actual time. Firms like GitLab have little selection however to adapt.
That adaptation will create winners and losers. Some good issues could also be misplaced alongside the way in which. Some individuals will completely really feel betrayed by adjustments to a tradition they deeply believed in. Some clients will determine the brand new course will not be for them.
All of that’s actual.
However I additionally assume GitLab deserves credit score for recognizing the dimensions of the transition taking place in entrance of the trade and for making an attempt to remake itself accordingly as a substitute of pretending incremental change will probably be sufficient.
The larger query is whether or not they can do it whereas preserving sufficient of the operational philosophy that made GitLab matter within the first place.
Can an organization stay an open guide whereas rewriting itself for the agentic period?
We’re about to seek out out.