3 ms·
Be that as it may, they effectively entirely handed governance of Ruby Central over to a single party and manufactured a funding crisis that that party used to
by busterarm 1y ago
Be that as it may, they effectively entirely handed governance of Ruby Central over to a single party and manufactured a funding crisis that that party used to make drastic change.
This directly damaged the entire Ruby community. Their dollars had influence that they could have used to steer the organization elsewhere, but instead they took their toys away and gave control to the very people they disagreed with.
- marcinzm 1y agoA system with a single failure point is inherently unstable. It's not a question of if it will fail but when it will fail.
- busterarm 1y agoThere wasn't a single failure point until Sidekiq pulled their funding, that's why Ruby Central's reaction to impending failure, as you said, was so extreme.
- marcinzm 1y agoSo not a single point of failure but the single action of Sidekiq's pulling funding was the cause... almost as if Sidekiq's funding was the single point of failure. If this is the reaction of the Ruby Community then no wonder they got themselves into this mess to begin with. Like deciding the intern should be fired for dropping prod and not the CTO who told everyone to use admin permissions for everything.
- motbus3 1y agoMaybe the lack of support from all other companies and people to the ruby foundation was the culprit. Sidekiq was help without obligation.