3 ms·

Sure, they don't like DHH. I never much liked him either (too opinionated for my taste), though Rails is a really good thing and honestly put Ruby on the map, a

Sure, they don't like DHH. I never much liked him either (too opinionated for my taste), though Rails is a really good thing and honestly put Ruby on the map, and DHH deserves credit for that. But seriously, pull all their funding because of being platformed at RailsConf (_Rails_Conf, not _Ruby_Conf). Seems over-reactionary, and ultimately hurtful to the Ruby community (making them more dependent on Shopify). Update: To be fair, I haven't followed DHH/Rails/Ruby community for the past decade (was very involved ~15 yrs ago), so my views may be outdated. Still I think pulling the funding doesn't help Ruby.

madeofpalk 1y ago
I don't like DHH (for whatever reason), and I would never want to spend my own money on 'platforming' him. It seems pretty reasonable that someone/company applies discretion to which community events they sponsor.
- baobabKoodaa 1y ago
  Sure it feels good to pull money as a kneejerk reaction and virtue signalling, but it's still generally a good idea to think through the consequences of your actions.
  - makeitdouble 1y ago
    We should be thankful a project like Sidekiq sponsored so much money over such a long period. Whatever reason they had to pull out, the blame should lie on the lack of other companies stepping in and keeping some power balance.
827a 1y ago
Its especially wild given how their action in pulling funding seems to have been a prime motivator for this power grab: in their attempt to boycott DHH, they quite literally handed him the keys to the kingdom.
- evolve2k 1y ago
  It does imply an option here. For the affected ruby gems core team to strike up a sponsorship agreement and launch a forked ruby gems service. For developers who agree that the original team was treated terribly, it’s a one line code change at the top of our Gemfiles to get behind a new gem repository.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  A "boycott" assumes voiced opinions, and I don't think we have anything public about why Sidekiq stopped sponsoring. We assume it's linked to DHH because he's an asshole, but that's just our own theories.

madeofpalk 1y ago

I don't like DHH (for whatever reason), and I would never want to spend my own money on 'platforming' him. It seems pretty reasonable that someone/company applies discretion to which community events they sponsor.

baobabKoodaa 1y ago
Sure it feels good to pull money as a kneejerk reaction and virtue signalling, but it's still generally a good idea to think through the consequences of your actions.
- makeitdouble 1y ago
  We should be thankful a project like Sidekiq sponsored so much money over such a long period. Whatever reason they had to pull out, the blame should lie on the lack of other companies stepping in and keeping some power balance.

827a 1y ago

Its especially wild given how their action in pulling funding seems to have been a prime motivator for this power grab: in their attempt to boycott DHH, they quite literally handed him the keys to the kingdom.

evolve2k 1y ago
It does imply an option here. For the affected ruby gems core team to strike up a sponsorship agreement and launch a forked ruby gems service. For developers who agree that the original team was treated terribly, it’s a one line code change at the top of our Gemfiles to get behind a new gem repository.
makeitdouble 1y ago
A "boycott" assumes voiced opinions, and I don't think we have anything public about why Sidekiq stopped sponsoring. We assume it's linked to DHH because he's an asshole, but that's just our own theories.