
Why I'm declining funding from Ruby Together - jrochkind1
https://samphippen.com/why-im-declining-funding-from-ruby-together/
======
deedubaya
Something is obviously broken for a prominent contributor to the ruby
community to decline funding from Ruby Together, regardless of the cause or
reasoning.

So sad to see this drama arise in the ruby community, but sometimes there are
no other option. I commend those who tried to resolve the issues quietly
having the resolve to stand up for what they believe is right, even if it
rocks the boat.

~~~
ksec
Why is it always Ruby? Why does the Ruby Community in general get much more
drama then anywhere else.

I am convinced a certain Programming languages and stack as well as Open
Sources License attract certain type of people. And these people who are
attracted to Ruby seems to cause more drama then the norm.

~~~
lokopodium
Coraline Ada Ehmke.

------
swrobel
As a recent victim of André's petty wrath, I completely agree with the
sentiment

~~~
netule
Care to elaborate a bit?

~~~
swrobel
I apparently violated the Bundler CoC by disagreeing with their implementation
of --jobs <n> that actually runs n - 1 jobs. When I questioned what I had
actually violated, he accused me of making a joke about racism and blocked me.
[https://twitter.com/swrobel/status/984894874330656768](https://twitter.com/swrobel/status/984894874330656768)

~~~
danso
You weren't accused of "making a joke about racism". He posted the part of the
CoC [0] that he believed you to have violated. He then gave you a 24-hour-
block because your remark "counts as doubling down" on what he originally
accused you of.

I guess he didn't appreciate you implying that the CoC is a bunch of facile
garbage.

[0]
[https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-38...](https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/5808#issuecomment-381254777)

~~~
mlevental
God damn you people are sensitive. I see a guy (swrobel) venting about a bad
API and using words like "infuriating", "REASONS", and several exclamation
marks. he was confused about where he was skirting code of conduct because
what he'd done was express disapproval of a design decision. he quotes the coc
and then alludes to clauses that he believes would actually merit a warning -
"slavery" and "indentured servitude" is language in the coc. note this isn't
false dichotomy because the extreme end of the spectrum he's distinguished his
comments from are explicitly forbidden by the coc. yes he used a smiley. God
forbid. he also apologized and but somehow that's not being taken in into
account by either you or indirect. then indirect responds with a positive
prescription of the coc rather than a negative proscription (ie if it were a
real contract it would be completely immaterial to the case since the rules
cited don't forbid things only encourage). finally supposing we do take the
rules cited by indirect as negative ("only this kind of language and behavior
is allowed") there's not a shred of constructive feedback in indirect's
initial response other than "don't do this" which just begs the question of
whether he did anything to begin with. swrobel didn't show antipathy for
anyone (he vented frustration about code). he didn't use exclusive language
(he didn't say anything about any people at all), and he wasn't dismissive of
any viewpoints because none were expressed by anyone.

so what really happened? indirect felt he was being criticized and used his
small bit of power to silence the critic under the auspices of being just.
lol.

~~~
danso
> _he also apologized and but somehow that 's not being taken in into account
> by either you or indirect._

Making a snide comment is not an apology. @swrobel jumped into a Github issue
that was resolved and closed _6 months ago_. And instead of taking a minute to
read a discussion that _agreed_ with his complaint, went off on a bizarre rant
that would be flamed as outright asanine. At least @indirect followed his own
CoC and downplayed it as being rude.

~~~
mlevental
you teach journalism classes and you don't see how your diction frames what
happened in a way that either confirms your own biases or furthers your own
agenda (proving swrobel was in the wrong). "snide comment", "bizarre rant",
"asanine[sic]".

there's nothing bizarre or ranty or asinine about swrobel comments. it was
venting at a poorly documented API - he admitted as much. is that the most
professional thing to do? sure maybe not - but it's not cavalier banter about
slavery either. and how about I flip it on you: how about a little empathy for
him? if you want contribute to open source this is exactly the kind of empathy
you need to have: will this choice make my API consumers miserable.

the apology is very clearly delineated from his comment on the coc.

"Sorry man, I was really annoyed because I was late to this party. I apologize
for venting here."

it's very clear and unequivocal.

yes his citation of the coc included a sarcastic smiley. I've already said
this: God forbid. reread his response without it. is it still snide? I suspect
no.

finally getting back to indirect being unable to take the implicit criticism
in stride: if you want to contribute to open source (really anything in public
space) you have to be comfortable with criticism. swrobel didn't attack
indirect personally (e.g. "you're such a dummy for this design choice") he
criticized the choice. that's fine even if it was 6 months after it was fixed
(because your mistakes will always be yours - they don't magically get
stricken from the record after 6 months). if you are afraid that people will
be upset with you for making mistakes then don't make things for people.

~~~
danso
The asanine part comes from ranting about a bug in a Github issue in which the
bug had been discussed, fixed, and closed.

~~~
mlevental
Like I said: the same kind of empathy you expect from swrobel should be
extended to him, hence it's not asinine (extremely stupid and foolish) but
completely understandable even if still perturbing.

~~~
danso
I do empathize with him, as I make plenty of asinine mistakes myself. But
between him and the project admin, I empathize more with the latter, who asked
him to be polite but got a snide insult as a response.

------
rhapsodic
Here's another example of drama generated by André Arko:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15084792](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15084792)

------
KindOne
Page is 404'ing.

Mirror:

[http://archive.is/gOm3s](http://archive.is/gOm3s)

[https://web.archive.org/web/20180420220028/https://samphippe...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180420220028/https://samphippen.com/why-
im-declining-funding-from-ruby-together/)

------
spotman
Sounds like a good time for a fork of bundler.

------
ksec
$20,000 USD every month?

Why does it take so much to run RubyGems? I am guessing these cost are not
just hardware cost?

~~~
nkantar
Sidestepping the questionable wording (part of the OP's point is that RubyGems
is _not_ funded by Ruby Together), bandwidth and human time are probably far
more significant portions of operational cost than hardware.

~~~
ksec
But I thought fastly were already sponsoring Rubygems bandwidth.

~~~
nkantar
I appears to be so—I was unaware of that when I posted my reply.

------
gabeh
I'm genuinely curious if my perception that the Ruby community has more drama
than other communities is actually true.

~~~
deedubaya
A community without drama is probably a low movement community.

It all boils down to the _type_ of drama that is important.

Drama over technical choices is probably a good healthy conversation to have
in a community.

Drama of someone potentially abusing power given to them by the community is
bad.

I can't recall any other instances of this type of drama in the ruby
community, but maybe someone else can remember?

