←back to thread

Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

(pup-e.com)
665 points jolux | 1 comments | 19 Sep 25 08:09 UTC | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
davidw ◴[19 Sep 25 15:37 UTC] No.45302820[source]▶
Seems relevant: https://ruby.social/@getajobmike/115231677684734669

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

replies(2): >>45302882 #>>45302944 #
mijoharas ◴[19 Sep 25 15:47 UTC] No.45302944[source]▶
> 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.

replies(4): >>45302987 #>>45303007 #>>45303111 #>>45305424 #
mperham ◴[19 Sep 25 15:49 UTC] No.45302987[source]▶
I clarified the toot.
replies(2): >>45303054 #>>45304072 #
mijoharas ◴[19 Sep 25 15:53 UTC] No.45303054[source]▶
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?

replies(2): >>45303557 #>>45304356 #
bakugo ◴[19 Sep 25 16:32 UTC] No.45303557[source]▶
> 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.

replies(1): >>45304454 #
lstodd ◴[19 Sep 25 17:49 UTC] No.45304454[source]▶
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.
replies(1): >>45305101 #
bakugo ◴[19 Sep 25 18:53 UTC] No.45305101[source]▶
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.

replies(4): >>45306015 #>>45306034 #>>45306346 #>>45314048 #
rexpop ◴[19 Sep 25 20:16 UTC] No.45306034[source]▶
There is no "neutral stance," only ignorance of bias.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10970937

replies(1): >>45307086 #
tremon ◴[19 Sep 25 21:48 UTC] No.45307086[source]▶
All rhetorical dichotomies are false.
replies(2): >>45308218 #>>45314042 #
1. ranger_danger ◴[20 Sep 25 15:14 UTC] No.45314042[source]▶
> Only my opinion can be valid