A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

Everything you're quoting is from one aggrieved person, who clearly felt slighted, and who left out a whole lot of context in their own post. The article above is a lot more reasoned, less emotional, and seems completely reasonable to me. Ruby Central clearly has issues with both internal and external communication. And the above article isn't an official statement either; it's just one person, not involve in the decision, offering another perspective.

It's not just one person.

Between the initial removal of access, then giving it back after explaining it was a mistake; the people involved started a conversation about governance to clarify/fix things.

https://github.com/rubygems/rfcs/pull/61

The conversation terminated because the majority of those people then had their access revoked again.

When weighing the facts here; which group or claimant has the most evidence for their claims? The technical folks with lots of commits over many years, or the treasurer of an organisation who says the impetus for this was a "funding deadline" so all access had to be seized?

> who clearly felt slighted,

I think this person has good cause for being very upset at the lack of communication and the sudden removal of them from the organization. They were a maintainer of RubyGems for a decade.

Everything he quoted is a fact, which can be proven or falsified. Taken together (and if true) they're pretty damning.

You responded with an ad-hominem attack. If you can offer a rebuttal of the facts then please do, otherwise try to refrain from personal attacks.

Wait, what?

A maintainer of RubyGems was forcibly removed from the RubyGems GitHub org — which was renamed to Ruby Central — along with every other maintainer. Then access was restored, then revoked again. There was no explanation, no communication, and no understandable reasoning for this.

And still! If there is an "official" statement, I can't find one on https://rubycentral.org/.

This wildly transcends "issues with both internal and external communication" or "we're just a bunch of makers who can't be expected to be good at organization or communication" (to highly paraphrase TFA). This is an absolutely disastrous breach of the community's trust.

I know you're already getting piled on here but

> less emotional,

Expressing emotions is good, actually.

I dunno what you read, but nothing I wrote included any attacks, personal or otherwise.

Ah, you're constructively accusing the author of "[leaving] out a whole lot of context". Non-derogatorily.

It’s “felt slighted” that makes me wonder how often you get into arguments that escalate “for no reason.”

Having access revoked with no heads up is a slight. You’re goddamned right they feel slighted. They were slighted.

“Feel slighted” is like “I’m sorry you’re upset”. You put everything on the aggrieved party when you say it like that.

Less emotional? It comes from someone who has no personal stake in the outcome, and was in the loop for the decision making. Versus someone who was personally slighted and was not properly communicated with about such a big change.

> Everything you're quoting is from one aggrieved person, who clearly felt slighted, and who left out a whole lot of context in their own post.

^ This was a personal attack.

1. Visit https://rubycentral.org

2. Click News.

3. It’s the top item.

Direct link: https://rubycentral.org/news/strengthening-the-stewardship-o...

Not "a maintainer", many of the most prominent ones and trustworthy over the years.

Right now the board is acting indistinguishably from Andrew Lee during the Freenode collapse, and, like, everyone else who ever did a hostile takeover of an open source project ever. Supporters of the board are acting indistinguishably from supporters of Andrew Lee during the Freenode collapse.

I saw that. The title did not make me think it was related. But fair enough.