#DRAAAMS!
It is Friday evening, I just spent my entire afternoon on drama instead of being productive and working on billable stuff. Yet this time of drama is actually directly related to the work I do and why it really matters to me to be involved and help be part of a solution.
Context
RubyTogether is an organization that was created to help make sure that Ruby and all of the infrastructure that the Ruby community depends on can be sustained for a long time. We’ve got a post that was published a while back on this blog that goes deeper in detail on what that means, I suggest you check that out before continue reading this.
When B&G joined RT, it was primarily because of the mission behind the organization, but also because it had some legitimacy solely based on the people who were part of the board, which included Aaron Patterson and スティーブ クラブ肉 (Steve Klabnik). The only reason these names mattered is because there was no other metric available to judge the legitimacy of the organization and make sure it’s not someone’s ruse to scam people out of their money to fund their own work.
The Trigger
Speaking of someone funding their own work, a prominent member of the Ruby community came out with this blog post with a title that was bound to stir up some drama: Why I’m declining funding from Ruby Together.
Update [2018–04–22]: Sam announced on twitter in this tweet that he has removed his original post in favor of the communication that is happening through other means. This is a good sign that things are progressing and the issues are being addressed.
In the blog post, Sam Phippen explains some of the issues that have been boiling up in recent months around the whole organization. One of the issues that Sam brings up is the possible conflict of interest surrounding the director of RubyTogether, André who is the main contributor to Bundler, and hence the main recipient of funds from RT.
Typical to how society functions today, a Twitter drama ensued. Many people chimed in with their own perspective. You can follow some of that in this Twitter Moment: https://twitter.com/i/moments/987413824931278852, make sure to click on the tweets and read the threads, and not just what’s on the surface.
Next Steps
I believe people like Sam and Aaron have valid concerns. I also believe André when he says he has tried to address those concerns. I understand why the initial step that was taken was done in secret, but I do also think that it’s time this gets dealt with in a transparent way.
The reason why we need transparency is in the nature of the organization itself. It’s a non-profit organization that is funded by membership dues. The board is elected by the members and it’s their right to know who they are putting in charge of the organization. In addition to that, the organization is meant to serve an open source community and takes actions that affect the entire community and not just the paying members.
Most importantly though, the key to success moving forward is having a willingness to communicate with one another in a respectful and open minded way. Something I believe both parties have failed at in this situation. Letters that look and feel like something a lawyer would send are bound to have an adverse reaction to them. On the other hand, blocking people on Twitter is not conducive to keeping a communication channel open. But that’s in the past, the question is can we hit a reset button and start again a conversation that is amicable and positive? Can both sides agree that we’re all working for the same goals, we all believe in the same mission and want RT to succeed, therefore should try to prioritize that over any personal feelings?
My 2 cents: for RT to succeed we need to find people who are not as invested in the personal aspect of this conversation to lead and mediate the conversation. Maybe even lead RT altogether. It might sound weird. How can someone who isn’t invested care enough about the success of RT? Easily. I, as an example and I’m sure there are many like me out there, have no flesh in the game because I choose NOT to contribute to any of the open source projects that RT would fund, BUT I have a very deep interest to make sure those projects succeed because I depend on them for my work, therefore I have as much interest as anyone in making sure RT is successful without the conflict of being the recipient of the money that RT contributes to the open source community. So is there someone who isn’t DHH, Aaron, André, Sam, or any one of the major contributors but that still has the same interest in seeing RT succeed, that can (and wants to) lead the organization? I believe that will be the key moving forward.
What’s your sense of all of this? How would you resolve this situation?
