Effect of the Last Week on Ruby on Rails

rubyonrails-core
46

It never ceases to amaze me how people try to dramatize everything. Only 1 out of 12 core members resigned. 7 VPs out of how many? „Numerous users“ – wow, that must be everyone. One troll on Twitter says „Fu** DHH“ – since when is such a well-articulated argument the source of truth?

Also guys, please read the statements yourself instead of arguing with second-hand information from the Twitter hate train.

It’s funny how people feel entitled just because they chose to use an open-source project. Even suggesting to kick DHH, and/or Basecamp out is just ridiculous. He created it and was so nice to share it with the world. You should be grateful, but that’s what he gets in return…

If you don’t like it, create a fork, rename it, put every governance model or committee in place you like.

Also interesting that while some (who probably haven’t even contributed to Rails) forge plans on how to get rid of him, I haven’t seen the main contributors saying something like that, ever.

Yes, there are thousands of contributors now. There is a core team of heavy contributors, and I’m happy about every single one. But don’t forget: it’s easier to improve something existing than creating it out of thin air. The DSL of a Rails 2.0 application looks a whole lot like a Rails application you would start today. Yes, it gets better every day and that’s amazing. But the principles are the same.

You should be thankful that he gave it to the community. There is probably no company that gave more of their code back to Rails than Basecamp. Maybe think about that when you continue your witch hunt, and join the hate mob, just because they did something you disagree with.

I’m happy that DHH and Basecamp had and have such a huge influence on Rails. Without them, it would just be one of the other frameworks that for some reason you don’t like as much, or you wouldn’t be here.

I don’t know DHH personally, I don’t even agree with every personal argument he makes, and I don’t have to. But I’m sick of seeing mobs forming to try to force creators out of their projects. I only speak up to show that there are people that usually remain silent who don’t share these views.

I’m a software developer for 20 years, with Rails since 2.0. And I’m still excited when DHH shares new code. Because usually, I can learn something. It would be a shame if he stops doing this, because of people like you.

(This is addressed to the whole „get him out“ gang, not a specific person)

33 Likes
47

I don’t think anyone is arguing for “kicking DHH out of Rails” — furthermore, I find it’s been nothing less than gaslighting to say people’s “emotions are running high” therefore we’re not thinking clearly about the situation.

I absolutely guarantee you that this issue will come up again and again as long as Rails has a de-facto BDFL governance model, and I absolutely guarantee you there are numerous people who otherwise would be happy to contribute to Rails who currently aren’t or will not in the future because DHH has veto power over all decision making for the project and nobody can hold him accountable.

There’s little point in arguing whether or not the controversy over Basecamp’s particular set of decisions over the last several days is spilling over into Rails. It already has, so that’s a moot point. The discussion instead should be:

(a) Is the BDFL governance model still adequate for Rails such that all of the people that will now leave the Rails community or will not join in the future is deemed acceptable because of what the BDFL model still affords the project?

or (b) Does moving to a new governance model (aka a “Rails foundation”) bring with it enough tangible benefits for the Rails project & community over the long term such that it’s worth the temporary challenges to advocate for and implement such change?

I strongly recommend the latter.

8 Likes
48

To be clear, I am not advocating “kicking DHH or Basecamp out” in the least. I think their contributions have usually been incredibly valuable (obviously) and there’s no reason why they should be kicked out.

1 Like
49

And that’s why you retweet every single negative tweet about him or Basecamp you can find? Always nice to see someone else’s house burn. Let’s add some fuel.

The problem remains: People feel entitled to take over the decisions of a project because they have git cloned it. While never having contributed to it in a meaningful way. Taking the work others have done for years – for free – for granted, and expect them to hand everything over.

7 Likes
50

and I absolutely guarantee you there are numerous people who otherwise would be happy to contribute to Rails who currently aren’t or will not in the future because DHH has veto power

If people judge frameworks based on the morals or public image of their creators, why are they so keen on React? (made by Facebook), on Google’s Go and Angular or on Microsoft’s .NET or Apple’s Swift - and so on and so on? I can easily make the case that Rails is the more moral choice, if we wanna measure framework morality like that. Like or dislike David he has been more vocal on societal issues than any other OSS leader that I know of. He went into countless public battles against the likes of Apple and other giant tech monopolies or smaller but abusive employers, mostly trying to make the case for the little guy, the employee, the weak. And yes he also created a lot of powerful enemies and people who are super happy to see him eat crow now. But what have others done? What has Linus done lately for society? Or Facebook’s React maintainers, or the .NET guys, or the PHP guys? No really, how are they any better - because they smartly stayed out the spotlight?

13 Likes
51

Hi there,

I’m a former Ruby on Rails core team member (from way back when in the 1.0 days).

I’ve asked to be taken off the Rails core alumni list because I don’t want to be associated with a project anymore that is lead by someone who is actively driving away other core team members.

I’m using Rails actively and I hope the project can grow beyond this and blossom in the future. In my opinion, it would be best for the future of Rails if David would voluntarily step down on his own accord. He’s done a great job–but Rails is more than him or Basecamp and his further involvement would only create ongoing tension.

This is just my two cents, Thomas Fuchs

25 Likes
52

This is a bit of a strawman argument, I feel. There is no value in bringing in other frameworks that are corporate controlled into the discussion as we are trying to move beyond the perception that one company or individual decides the fate of Rails as a framework, community, or organization.

This is what a lot of people are failing to realize about all this: ultimately the actions of one have dealt the Rails team a massive Public Relations problem that they are forced to deal with. People can take sides and argue over how we got here but it does not change that fact.

Just today the Rails team felt the need to put out a statement clarifying how the team works. This is evidence of an ongoing and evolving PR problem, unfortunately. And frankly, if this PR and perception problem leads to one newcomer avoiding Rails then we all will collectively suffer as the community will fail to grow.

PS: I’ve been using Rails for almost 15 years now and just the past 2 weeks I’ve introduced my team of 3 newer engineers to the framework for the first time. They love it and can’t wait to learn more. I would hate to see anything inhibit that newfound joy and excitement one gets from Rails for the first time!

10 Likes
53

Hi there. This is actually my first post/reply here, but this time I am really concerned.

As an educator who has delivered Rails course in university for 3 times now (more than 120 students in total, 80 more coming this autumn) and as a developer who has been working with Rails for almost a decade, I would like to share an opinion.

I personally don’t see how radical changes in governance, forking, trying to force DHH to step down or bashing on Twitter will help a community or Rails.

I have discussed state of Rails with many people during last 3 years (students, educators, employers, developers, including people from marginalized backgrounds) and there are almost no one who cares about political issues at Basecamp/Shopify/Github or about Core Committee members. They care about community in general, about technical details, about productivity, about fun and joy that working with Rails provides. What seems to be a huge deal on Twitter is nothing to vast majority of developers and students.

That said, I am totally disagree with the message of original post in this thread and I don’t see any reasons to change something in Rails Governance now.

Best Regards, Pavel Oganesyan

14 Likes
54

There is an official response from the Rails core team here:

Quoting this fully here:

As some questions have been raised about how the Rails project’s governance functions, we’d like to clarify how the team is structured and how we operate:

Ruby on Rails is an Open Source project run by the Rails Core team. In addition to the Core team we have two additional teams - the Committer team who can merge code changes, as well as the Issues team who can triage issues and merge documentation changes.

There are 11 members on the Core team who work for various employers or are independent consultants. We make decisions and work towards consensus as a team when needed. We each strive to make decisions that are best for the Rails framework and community. The members of the Core team are:

  • DHH, Basecamp
  • Jeremy, Basecamp
  • Aaron, Shopify
  • Xavier, Independent Consultant
  • Rafael, Shopify
  • Andrew, Unboxed
  • Guillermo, Treasure Data
  • Carlos, YNAB
  • Matthew, Buildkite
  • Kasper, Independent Consultant
  • Eileen, GitHub

Through that consensus process, no one on the Core team, or their employers, have sole control over the framework or community. There is no individual or subset of individuals who have power to enact policies unilaterally in the Rails community spaces that we operate (for example on issues, pull requests, or the forum).

We encourage contributions from everyone and will work to make your experience as welcoming as possible.

We care deeply about the Rails community. The work we do on the framework is for you. We will continue to work at making Rails a great framework as well as a vibrant, diverse community of users and contributors.

17 Likes
55

Hi there,

I think I’m the first person in this thread who was looking into learning Rails and have been second-guessing that decision this week. Hoping I can provide some helpful context here, but obviously I’m just one data point so please take this with a huge grain of salt.

Some background: I’ve been a product designer for 10 years. I’m super comfortable with HTML, CSS, and basic vanilla JS, but am looking to build a deeper foundation in developing Web apps.

The thing is, I’m primarily drawn to Rails for ideological reasons. I’m looking to get comfortable with a popular framework, but am deeply worried about the performance and accessibility issues inherent in many SPAs. I’ve also appreciated the philosophy laid out in The Rails Doctrine.

My concerns about Rails don’t really stem from whether or not DHH is a “bad guy.” Rather, I’m struck by how Basecamp’s leadership forcibly transformed the organization into something I (and the employees!) disagreed with so strongly. It’s more about the potential for volatility than any one person’s character. If I’m going to invest years into learning Rails, I want to feel confident that its maintainers can continue to move the web forward in a way that aligns with my values and priorities.

Given that the RubyOnRails.org website:

  • Was developed by Basecamp employees

  • Contains a Rails 5 video tour hosted on DHH’s YouTube account

  • Lists Basecamp and HEY as the top of the example products list

  • Lists DHH as the sole author of “The Rails Doctrine”

  • Contains core team portraits by Basecamp’s former illustrator

I’ve assumed that Basecamp and Rails are tightly linked together (again, from my outsider perspective). So it’s not clear to me whether I can take the above blog post at its word. Also, even after reading the whole thread, I’m still not sure how much potential leverage DHH’s trademark ownership gives him over the community.

So I’d appreciate if the team published a bit more detail and transparency around the project’s governance structure, and how much leverage each core team member could potentially exercise if they so chose.

Maybe this already exists somewhere in the docs, but I’d have more peace of mind if it were on a highly visible webpage that the team would presumably be incentivized to keep up to date.

Hopefully this is helpful.

17 Likes
56

I agree that there needs to be a change in how Rails is governed and how the project is managed. Having the trademark owned by a single person, who is also a core team member, with an opaque decision-making progress; is a situation rife for unfair power balances (at best).

I’ve been a Rails developer for the majority of my career, and I’m genuinely excited by the framework’s changes since 5+. And with Hotwire, we have a chance to fundamentally improve how interactive websites are built and operate. I want to continue actively using Rails without having to worry about the health of the framework.

8 Likes
57

Personally I do not see any problem, and I do not understand everything that is happening.

  1. From my point of view, in the first place each company is free to update the company’s policy. I think people are forgetting what work means. When someone is working and get paid for it, has to focus on work and not on societal and political discussions. (We all know that any topic related to politics always creates great debates). Nobody forbids you to do it in your free time.

  2. What does basecamp policy have to do with rails ? We have to remember that in the first place Basecamp is a company and not an NGO.

So I think we should all stop looking for problems and find solutions, be more serious, and say goodbye to those who have decided to leave.

No one is irreplaceable, and I am sure they will realize that they have made a big mistake.

For every one who left there will be thousands who wish to occupy their position.

I thank DHH and all the contributors for rails and all that they have done.

Before looking for something bad to highlight on social networks we must remember all the good they have done for the community.

I think that more than ever we should support rails and basecamp. Personally, to support basecamp I have now migrated to Basecamp.

What if instead of continuing to waste our energy in this type of conversation, we focus all our energy on contributing something to the community and showing everyone who is leaving it that we will continue well without them?

Personally now I am more open than ever to dedicate my free time and support the project with what I can. (So if I can help with something send me a pm)

I want you to remember that it is difficult to build something great, and DHH along with the rest have done a great job. And it’s not fair to take some things out of context and hurt the community.

Remember that Basecamp is a company, and as a company they can do whatever they want and manage it however they want. And this has nothing to do with rails.

And for all those who leave I would say goodbye.

8 Likes
58

I agree, and I share the same concerns as the OP. I’ve been using Rails for only about a year now and I have a huge appreciation for the work that all the Rails Core team and contributors have been doing, but as someone who truly believes in successful FOSS projects and communities, I believe that it would be healthier and more sustainable if Rails’ image was less linked with individuals and more with the community.

7 Likes
59

I’m a relative newcomer to Rails, but I’ve followed similar issues with other open source projects enough to have an opinion. Leaving Basecamp out of this, and focusing on Rails - to me, it’s obvious that Rails has prospered despite of, not because of, its leadership model. DHH’s leadership has been mostly very good, and his vision for what a framework should be is very refreshing. But the benevolent dictator model only works until it doesn’t.

I think the vim conflict from a few years ago is instructive. Bram Moolenaar’s stubborn refusal to allow other people’s input into the future of vim (like modernising the tooling/testing and dropping Amiga (!) support) made some really talented people forking and forming a splinter group around neovim. These people could have contributed to vim, because since then vim has got async support among other things, but now they have probably diverged so much that merging the codebases is impossible.

This is awfully similar to the Merb debacle from the Rails 2 days, and it’s something DHH definitely does not want, and neither should anyone else. Forking Rails now would probably not have the happy ending Merb had, I foresee a much more acrimonious vim-like situation.

Still, Rails has a lot of things vim hadn’t, like a core group of people from different backgrounds, workplaces and cultures. This is vital to survival, and DHH (being a smart man) obviously realised this at some point. But the unanimous decisions of the core group can be swayed when one person owns it. The next step to a healthy future for Rails is making DHH one of the 12 (now 11), not the leader. Not as a “punishment” for any alleged wrongdoing (I think we can separate these issues), but because it’s an unsustainable model.

That said, I think it’s likely that Rails will be fine. What I’m really worried about is Hotwire, considering two its two main contributors just quit. The fact that it’s very loosely coupled with Rails and feels more like a Basecamp project than a Rails project, is also deeply worrying.

11 Likes
60

Hi Josh, welcome to the Rails discussion forum - I’ve put together some answers to the questions you’ve asked

Regarding rubyonrails.org, none of the Core team are designers/illustrators/copywriters and DHH has access to people at Basecamp with those skills. Not everything has been designed by Basecamp, for example the Rails Contributors website was designed by José Espinal.

DHH made the video because he’s good at those and the intent was to capture the spirit of the original 15 minute video - the fact that it’s on his YouTube channel is because there isn’t an official Ruby on Rails channel.

The trademark is purely there as a defensive measure to protect against abuse by third parties, the only time it ever comes up is when we flag someone who might be using it outside of the accepted limits and DHH needs to send a cease and desist email/letter.

On governance, we have a Core team and we operate on a consensus basis. The role of the Core team is to manage releases, evaluate pull-requests, handle conduct complaints, and lay the groundwork for major new features.

The process to become a Core team member is through outstanding contribution to the framework until you’re invited to become a member of the Committer team. Then if a person continues to contribute in a similar manner, at some point a Core team member will propose them and the rest of the team will make a decision whether to issue an invite using the consensus basis previously outlined. There is no fixed limit on the number of members and there is no term limit on membership.

Regarding the point about leverage, that’s not a term I’d use but if you’re asking what some would call ‘power dynamics’ then obviously each team member’s experience is personal. For example I’d generally defer to Aaron’s greater experience in Active Record and DHH’s on the public api of a feature but it’s not a ‘veto’ like some portray it - there are times when DHH has accepted my thoughts about a public api on a feature and I don’t fear for my place on the Core team if I disagree.

The Core team is setup to provide stability - membership is not tied to employment at any company and some current members have been employed by Basecamp before and after being added to the Core team.

Hopefully this addresses the concerns you have.

Andrew White
Rails Core team member

34 Likes
61

Hi Andrew,

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond!

To clarify, I wasn’t looking to get my personal issues addressed, but rather trying to provide a concrete example of…

…in case it helps focus the discussion. Everything in your response makes sense. But I guess I was trying to explain the impression a newcomer might receive when they visit the site. The nuance you provided isn’t reflected in the site’s content IMHO.

4 Likes
62

Yep. Rails will be fine and changes aren’t needed, but Hotwire feels a bit precarious. Understanding the “governance structure” for it would be great. For example: at railsconf DHH said Hotwire would be the default in Rails 7. Assuming this is still the plan, does that mean the Rails Core team’s scope now covers it too?

I realize the dust is still settling and it may be too early to answer. I’m also happy to help maintain and improve Hotwire - we have invested a lot in it and don’t want to see it go away.

13 Likes
64

As someone who’s been using Rails for most of my professional work for the past 15ish years I’d like to strongly co-sign this post. Rails is a broadly used and somewhat mature framework and ought to have its governance and trademark separated from an individual person or company, for the good of the community and the further development of the framework.

2 Likes
65

“I’m sick of seeing mobs forming to try to force creators out of their projects.”

In what sense does DHH own Rails? Honest question. Putting aside questions of owning trademarks, domain names, intellectual property law, etc, how long has Rails been around now? How many projects (Laravel, Phoenix) have been directly inspired by the concepts of Rails? At this point, where would the project be without the community? Would it even still be the same thing.

I’m reminded of the argument around copyright law. At what point should something (the song “happy birthday”, the Mickey Mouse image, Bob Dylan’s songs, The Beatle’s songs, James Brown songs) which has become such a central part of a society’s intellectual or cultural heritage be legally recognized as part of our common heritage?

20 years? 100 years? 200 years? Those numbers are not unrealistic w/regards to copyright and intellectual property law.

Not un-similarly, how much is too much profit for a company like Pfizer to make? I think they’ve made like 3.5 billion to date.

So, like, at what point does something which has become a common cultural good, for the good of society, no longer “belong” to one person?

A big question and maybe off topic so forgive but I couldn’t help to respond.

Also btw it’s silly to say “It would be a shame if he [DHH] stops doing this, because of people like you.”

Not like there wouldn’t be any way for DHH to share code no matter what happens, or be an individual contributor of code to Rails with PR’s like everybody else …

2 Likes
67

Political issues in a company are always a very slippery slope. Somewhere along the way, many of us have allowed our passion for our views to turn into a lack of respect for, even hatred of, anyone whose views disagree with ours. I am in favor of forums restricted to technical issues parallel with forums discussing political issues, especially when those issues affect the livelihoods of members of the forum (e.g. discriminatory hiring and/or work policies in tech jobs). But these discussions must take place with a modicum of respect, if not for the opposing views, then for the complexities involved in trying to overhaul an industry/culture, and should not carry over into the technical aspects of the job. As a former tech executive and father of a transgender tech worker, I think I might have a unique perspective on these issues.

I think the situation at BaseCamp may have occurred simply because management saw political discussions harming the company culture, and came to the (perhaps overly simplistic) conclusion that the best path was to stop the discussions within the company proper. That is not the same as not caring about the issues, but I can understand some seeing it that way. It is no more possible for the executives to dictate company culture than it is for any segment of the company employees to do so. By definition, company culture is the intersection of the values of all stakeholders in the company: executives, middle managers, non-management workers, and (to some extent) customers and business partners. Finding the right balance is a messy process. Hopefully they’ll get where they need to go.

5 Likes