←back to thread

658 points jolux | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.204s | source
Show context
krmbzds ◴[] No.45301255[source]
The recent actions taken by Ruby Central - removing long-time RubyGems and Bundler maintainers without warning, seizing administrative access, and consolidating control under a small, centralized group - represent a serious breach of trust within the Ruby ecosystem.

This was not a misunderstanding. It was a hostile takeover of key infrastructure, undermining both the long-standing maintainers and the broader community that relies on RubyGems and Bundler every day.

The Ruby ecosystem thrives on collaboration, openness, and mutual respect. What we've witnessed over the past week violates those principles. Ruby Central's actions - unilateral access revocations, exclusion of experienced volunteers, and refusal to engage in transparent dialogue - are not just organizational missteps. They're a threat to the decentralized and community-driven spirit that has sustained Ruby for decades.

I oppose this power grab.

Even more concerning is the idea that contributor access could become contingent on employment status or ideological alignment. Whether someone is employed by Ruby Central - or holds left-leaning, right-leaning, or apolitical views - should have no bearing on their ability to contribute to open source. Merit, dedication, and community trust must remain the foundation.

If Ruby Central is serious about supporting the Ruby community, they must:

- Immediately restore access to all maintainers removed during this incident.

- Publicly commit to a transparent, community-driven governance model, similar to what the RubyGems team had begun drafting.

- Respect the autonomy of open source maintainers, regardless of whether they are employed by Ruby Central.

- Acknowledge the harm caused by these actions and engage in meaningful dialogue to rebuild trust.

The Ruby community has always been about people - diverse, passionate, and united by a love for a beautiful language. It's time we demand that the institutions claiming to represent us act accordingly.

And if Ruby Central does not do this we must pressure sponsors to stop funding Ruby Central and ultimately; if all else fails, we must build and maintain our own infrastructure unencumbered by these shenanigans. Also, in order to re-establish trust in the community; the people responsible for causing this ruckus should be fired.

Ruby-Level Sponsors (Top Tier): Alpha Omega, Shopify, Sidekiq

Gold-Level Sponsor Flagrant

Silver-Level Sponsors: Cedarcode, DNSimple, Fastly, Gusto, Honeybadger, Sentry

replies(6): >>45301272 #>>45301522 #>>45301533 #>>45301996 #>>45302057 #>>45302537 #
clanky[dead post] ◴[] No.45301272[source]
[flagged]
krmbzds ◴[] No.45301324[source]
Your account was created 5 minutes ago. Your username is "clanky". That's hilarious.

For future reference, the flagged parent comment was: "Slop."

replies(1): >>45301385 #
Antibabelic[dead post] ◴[] No.45301385[source]
[flagged]
celticninja ◴[] No.45301411[source]
what are these hallmarks?

is this becoming the latest way to attack an idea? instead of engaging with the actual content you just claim it is AI and therefore it can be ignored? seems disingenuous to say the least.

replies(3): >>45301498 #>>45301524 #>>45301554 #
1. evertedsphere ◴[] No.45301524[source]
It's not an attack on an idea.

It's pointing out that the person who posted something couldn't be bothered to actually write it themselves. The "content" is the prompt, which is of course never shared because it's probably so trite that it's not going to get anyone's interest unless it's stochastically decompressed into a large amount of text.

Like the sibling commenter, I do not write Ruby and do not care about this conflict apart from a general interest in supply chain stuff. I'm merely tired of the constant encroachment of obvious LLM prose in HN submissions and (albeit less commonly) in comments.