Interesting, that makes sense now that I think about it. Thanks for explaining!

:( Nobody in particular is really a beneficiary of the current method yeah? So is it just a case of limited parliamentary time and this is never at the top of the list?

Plus the AEC needs to change some software I suppose so there’s some spending needed there too.

Any hope they’ll fix the senate mechanism so that all votes transfer at their correct fractional value? (This is the “weighted inclusive Gregory” thing you’ve written about right?)

As written this would stop you from sliding to knock a ball back in, and then getting up and throwing it to the keeper though!

“You can’t dismiss the batter by catching” perhaps, but can still throw it in for a run out!

🥔🥔🥔

Thank you for writing this - I 100% agree with your conclusion we need more corporate contributors to the open source ecosystem, not less.

> the long list of companies that attempted to migrate to something else and are now stuck with both a Ruby monolith and a ton of half-migrated micro-services in Java or Go.

Oof, I winced when I read that - sounds very familiar!

Oh they’re actually just called “Posts” aren’t they. Boo.

skeets*

Yeah, this drama about supply chain reminded me that I hadn’t committed for many months, so right thing to do is give up perms. But I do hope to come back in the future! I’ve just had _zero_ time to do programming outside of work this year 😢

Hopefully things get a little more sane at some point 🤞🤞🤞

For example, i can build a feature in a dependency, and know that I’m not wasting my time if it doesn’t make it upstream - this makes me _more_ likely to try things and send patches that others can benefit from, because I know that regardless of upstream traction i can achieve current requirements

One interesting thing about my current (very not-Ruby) job is that we use a Nix monorepo to manage all dependencies, and it makes it tractable to patch things and say “our company’s version of X has Y features”

I can see why this has ecosystem negatives, but there are a lot of positives too.

Interesting, I hadn’t realised this had been attempted.

It seems like a real problem on the reverse side too, creates a strong incentive to merge things that come from paying contributors regardless of whether they’re a good idea or not because… that’s what they’re paying for!

(Not because I’m trying to stir up more problems here - I’m kind of curious about what this model would look like, its pluses and minuses. I know open source sustainability is a big issue and I’d love to see what has/hasn’t worked in this space)

> Is not what I said. I'm talking about power to charge to contribute to Rubygems/Bundler.
>
> And there is no need imagining, it is established.

I gathered that there was some history along these lines, but I’m not sure what it was - can you lay out the breadcrumb trail?

Normally when I see Georgia called out for human rights abuses it’s the other Georgia.

The GST was the last far-reaching economic reform we had.

Bit disappointed we don’t get to see what happens if the Supreme Court says they can’t and the parliament goes ahead and expels him anyway. Real Charles I stuff!