zlacker

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I haven't followed DHH/Rails/Ruby community for the past decade (was very involved ~15 yrs ago), so my views may be outdated.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.

>>insane+(OP)
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.

>>insane+(OP)
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.

>>827a+Ce
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.

>>madeof+Bb
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.

>>baobab+vu
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+Ce
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.