I really don't see how you could say he is wrong. It's his open source project that he's put thousands of hours into and is providing for free to everyone that wishes to use it. You might not agree with what he says or decides on, that's completely fine. In that case you're completely free to use a different framework. Plenty of choice out there.
I find it interesting that development products/projects are probably the only place where no one will allow you to have a valid opinion as a non-contributing user. And people will defend this lunacy to amazing extremes, presumably because it's easier to tell everyone to fuck off than to filter and respond to the valid points.
I find this a bit disappointing because in any other situation, feedback and constructive criticism is welcome and typically acted on, even if you weren't involved in the production process. You might not be listened to, but you won't be silenced by your peers.
To use the silly analogy in the OP: you don't need to be a chef to say the food tastes like shit.
So you don't think it is possible to have an opinion on a project you maintain and be objectively wrong in that opinion[1]?
For instance, the GNOME3 guys and the design direction they are taking. No matter what, they can't be "wrong" (whatever that means in this case) in that opinion?
I get that objective right/wrong can get complex and murky rather rapidly, though I feel with experience people can actually make judgement calls on these. And in this case, checking in binary assets is wrong, from experience. It causes many more problems that it solves. So, DHH is "wrong" in this instance even if he himself feels that it is the way to go.
[1] - "wrong" might have been an improper word to use, though for the sake of consistency, I'm going to continue ;)
