My experience working at LinkedIn was that, after Microsoft took over, they offshored a huge part of their infrastructure and turned the entire culture into one of performative based engineering instead of results based engineering.

If you implemented a tool and it worked one time for your presentation to management that's all that mattered.

The actual company employees using it downstream in prod basically had to constantly QA the alpha software they were forced to use and the authors of the tool were hard to track down if they even still worked there. And if you did find the author or the team they would be very resistant to admitting there was an issue because it LOOKED bad.

So many tools I used were fragile and buggy, it was clear the authors just presented the happy path to management to get the note added to their promotion packet and the rest of the company just had to deal with the fallout.

My team implemented this product that the entire company used that was broken and buggy as hell but they kept presenting the product to management as this amazing product and nothing was ever done about how broken it was. One of my team members came from Apple and said Apple's tool to do the same thing was much better. The tool my team worked on was a well known pain point amongst the rank and file but management was very detached from the rank and file, which I guess ultimately was the primary problem.

If Github is having the same issues I feel for them.