(apiguy.substack.com)

104 points Qwuke | 1 comments | 21 Sep 25 19:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.424s | source

Show context

baggy_trough ◴[22 Sep 25 17:22 UTC] No.45336634[source]▶

Locking out a guy like David Rodriguez (the main person I see doing bundler commits) in a dramatic fashion just seems like absolute craziness. I can't fathom doing it without a very good reason, which has yet to be revealed if it exists.

replies(2): >>45338423 #>>45344443 #

padjo ◴[22 Sep 25 19:37 UTC] No.45338423[source]▶

>>45336634 #

Does “lest we lose critical funding because we don’t have proper agreements with our committers” not cut it as a reason for you? Genuinely curious, it seems like a reasonable explanation assuming it’s true.

replies(3): >>45338760 #>>45339249 #>>45340882 #

1. crote ◴[22 Sep 25 23:25 UTC] No.45340882[source]▶

>>45338423 #

What's the point of a foundation having funding if there's no ecosystem left to spend it on? And if a single source of funding is so critical that they can demand immediate wide-spreading changes to the ecosystem, is the foundation even independent at all, or just a corporate puppet pretending to be?

Who cares that you have funding for things like build servers and meetups when your core developers walk away and the project is left to rot?

↑

A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy