Add a paragraph about the RubyGems partnership

[adarsh]

Reason for Change

• There is a lot of confusion about how these shared resources are supported by the different Ruby community organizations.
• This is an effort to agree on language to ensure alignment across these organizations and clarify who does what for everyone in the Ruby community
• The language here could then be used in prominent places like rubytogether.org, rubycentral.org, rubygems.org, rubygems.org README.md.

Changes

• Added a Finance section and draft language based on the discussion from Clarify and make more prominent the role of the RubyGems partnership #5.

Recommended Reviewers

@evanphx, @qrush, @indirect, @practicingdev, @danielcompton

[evanphx]

Like on #5, the indication of financial contribution to rubygems.org is unnecessary (and in this specific case) wrong. RubyTogether and RubyCentral do not contribute the same amount of money to RubyGems.org, and of the funds used they don't go to the same places even.

Perhaps the bigger issue is the thread that RubyGems.org could fold if RubyTogether were not participating with it. This is incorrect. RubyGems.org was run by Ruby Central long before RubyTogether came on the scene and, at the moment, nothing is dependent upon RubyTogether for continued operations.

It's absolutely true that RubyTogether, on it's own accord, offers funds to folk that help out with RubyGems.org. And that without those funds, those folks very well might not have the ability to help. Ruby Central is certainly grateful for providing those individuals the opportunity to help out with RubyGems.org. But as of today, any relationship has always been with the individuals and never directly with RubyTogether. Those individuals are, from Ruby Central and RubyGems.org perspective, volunteers. We highly value their contributions and if they went away RubyGems.org would evaluate if the services they had been providing require replacement or not.

But as I previously stated, if those individuals went away because RubyTogether was no longer providing them with funds, RubyGems.org would continue unabated.

[qrush]

OK, so it seems that the confusion revolves around this line:

Ruby Together pays for developer and operations work

This makes it sound like RT does foot the bill for all work in these areas. Like I stated previously- this confusion is going to keep persisting until we clear it up in all places where someone might try to find out this info.

Maybe we should break this down differently? What if we just broke it down per-item? Now granted, I may not have the most up-to-date picture on the latest here so please excuse my ignorance. How's this sound?

---

RubyGems.org is brought to you by:

• Hosting fees: Ruby Central
• CDN fees: Fastly
• Development/Operations work: Developers funded by grants from Ruby Together + volunteers from the Ruby community
• Any other services that need to be mentioned

---

This README in rubytogether/board could link to a page on rubygems.org that includes the above text, and perhaps change the above quoted line to:

Ruby Together pays for a portion of developer and operations work on RubyGems.org, in support of and with the community of OSS volunteers from the Ruby community

Also to clarify @evanphx's stance on finances: It seems inappropriate to me for RT to include language on RC's financial contributions in this document. Both organisations should publish that data separately IMO, perhaps cross-linking a page describing financial contributions to OSS work would be better and allow for each org to have their own voice here.

[evanphx]

As Gregory pointed out on the other issue, the question being asked is “can I rely on RubyGems.org to always just be there?”

The answer to that question has never depended on RubyTogether. If RT folded, the impact to RubyGems.org would be me (as in me personally) reaching out to the existing volunteers to see if they are going to continue helping with the project. And of those that say no, put together a transition plan.

Because of the kind of work RubyGems.org has gotten in the past 12mo, that is entirely ops help (of which would fall to me, like it did over this previous Christmas) and security patches. I’d manage the later by reaching out to folks that might be interested in help and I’d personally backstop those in the interim.

To underscore a larger point, not a lot has been happening with RubyGems.org, the software, since Ruby Central has the redesign done.

[evanphx]

Thinking a little bit more on this, if I were to write a statement of the current situation that reflects my view:

RubyGems.org is made available solely through management and funding provided by Ruby Central. Ruby Central derives the funding for RubyGems.org from the community in the form of conference participation (tickets and sponsorships). Companies such as RubyTogether sponsor individuals to volunteer their time to help on various aspects of RubyGems.org to which Ruby Central is grateful, but the availability of RubyGems.org is not dependent actions of these volunteers. Put another way, Ruby Central has in the past and can again the future fully operate RubyGems.org alone.

[evanphx]

Cross linking my comment about the partnership Andre and I discussed years ago: #5 (comment)

[adarsh]

@evanphx thanks for the feedback here and your points about the misconception of RG.org availability are well-stated.

How's this for a draft?

RubyGems.org is managed by Ruby Central, a community-funded organization supported by conference participation for RailsConf and RubyConf through tickets and sponsorships.

RubyTogether sponsors individuals to work on development and operations work of RubyGems.org to augment the work of many volunteers. The availability of RubyGems.org is not dependent on these paid contributors and is the sole responsibility of Ruby Central.

Hosting fees are paid by Ruby Central and CDN fees are generously donated by Fastly.

[evanphx]

Draft looks good!

[adarsh]

Great! Thanks for helpful discussion! I'll initiate moving this language into other places as well.