equivalent / equivalent/we_demand_serverless_ruby

I think the wording of the petition is holding this back

Open
#5 7 comments 2 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub
Dominant language
Ruby
Stars
4
Forks
4
PR merge metrics
No merged PRs in 30d

Description

### https://www.serverless-ruby.org/

> "We **demand** FaaS for Ruby !"

As someone who has programmed in Ruby for over a decade, still deploys Ruby applications, and currently also deploys serverless applications (in Node.js), I'm hesitant to sign this petition, because it sounds whiny.

Why do we have to make "demands?" Is this a political statement? Are we suggesting that those that sign it cannot deploy a serverless function in any other language? For example, a perfect counter argument to this petition might be, _"If those behind the petition are willing to sound so self-righteous, then maybe they should build a FaaS competitor themselves (good luck with that)."_

Don't get me wrong: **I would love to see Ruby support in the FaaS world**, but I don't think this is the way to go about it.

Here are some suggestions for a new headline (keep it more positive):

---

### Rubyists are Ready for Serverless
### Grow the FaaS Community with Ruby
### AWS Lambda: Grow the Serverless Community with Ruby
(here, have the "AWS Lambda" prefix automatically cycle between the other FaaS providers)

---

**Other suggestions?**

Am I alone in feeling hesitant to sign the petition as it is currently written?

Contributor guide

No contributing guide indexed for this repository

Assessment

This issue has not been assessed yet.

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.