Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

Seems relevant: https://ruby.social/@getajobmike/115231677684734669

I'm just reposting it though. I haven't followed any of this myself.

> The unstated reason for this change was that many of the existing Rubygems maintainers have recently quit (including their only full-time engineer) due to their continued relationship with DHH.

Can someone expand on what this means? Is it a continued relationship between Ruby Central and DHH, or the maintainers and DHH? Why does the other party have a problem with that?

EDIT: It seems the post was clarified since I copy/pasted this, and it's RC and DHH. Why do the maintainers have a problem with this? I though the stated reason was about RC removing everyone's access with no warning.

I clarified the toot.

Thanks Mike, I editted, and asked this:

> Why do the maintainers have a problem with this? I thought the stated reason was about RC removing everyone's access with no warning.

I seem to remember some of DHH's controversy due to banning politics at basecamp or something. Is it related to that?

> I seem to remember some of DHH's controversy due to banning politics at basecamp or something. Is it related to that?

I wouldn't be surprised. The presence of this quote in the linked document:

> A person’s character is determined not only by their actions, but also the actions they stay silent while witnessing.

Suggests that the person who wrote it is deeply obsessed with political activism.

Inaction is an action in itself, they are right in this. IDK where you see a deep obsession in a recognition of this obvious fact.

No, inaction is inaction.

Claiming otherwise is just a roundabout way of saying "you must actively support my agenda at all times, otherwise I will consider you my enemy, even if you take a neutral stance" that political activists love to use to pressure normal people into supporting them.

Inaction is a manifestation of one of two things: ignorance, or conscious decision to not act. I agree that strictly only the latter can be considered an act, while the former .. well. Not an act, but a then the question arises if an unconscious person can even be considered a person _in_relation_to_having_a_conversation_with_them_. That last point I must even more press.

I think this is what we are discussing. Please share your viewpoint on this.

> Inaction is a manifestation of one of two things: ignorance, or conscious decision to not act.

Under which of these categories would you classify the following assertion:

> As much as I've learned about subject X, I still feel that neither I — nor most people who are already acting, for that matter — truly have enough information to take an informed stance here, as the waters are being actively clouded by propaganda campaigns, censorship, and false-flag operations by one or both sides; and I believe that acting without true knowledge can only play into someone's hand in a way that may damage what turns out to be an innocent party I would highly regret damaging, when this all shakes out a decade down the line. I find myself too knowingly ignorant to conscientiously act... yet I also do not highly prioritize gaining any more information about the situation, as I have seemingly passed the threshold where acquiring additional verifiable and objective information on the conflict is cheap enough to be worth it; gaining any further knowledge to inform my stance is too costly for someone like me, who is neither an investigative journalist, nor a historiographer, nor enmeshed in the conflict myself. So I fear I must opt out of the conflict altogether.

I find myself increasingly arriving at exactly this stance on so many subjects that other people seem to readily take stances (and allow themselves to be spurred to action) on.

I suppose I may differ from the average person in at least one way — that being that, if I were tricked into harming innocent parties, I would hold myself to account for allowing myself to be tricked, rather than externalizing blame to the party responsible for tricking me. After all, only by my learning a lesson in avoiding being manipulated, do I actually lessen the likelihood of the next innocent party coming to harm. Which is a lot more important to me, in a rule-utilitarian sense, than is avoiding social approbation for not taking a stance.