←back to thread

A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

(apiguy.substack.com)
104 points Qwuke | 3 comments | 21 Sep 25 19:20 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
throwaway346434 ◴[22 Sep 25 17:49 UTC] No.45336969[source]▶
It's such a weird thought process to have gone through, to write this. The sentiments expressed are basically:

"I WANT to apologize ... that I feel awful."

"How can you possibly talk to someone about changing access, when multiple people tell you no, you are wrong?! A coup is the only way!"

"Because funding deadline, we executed a coup, which will keep everyone safe from hostile actors... Taking over accounts and access"

replies(1): >>45337119 #
delichon ◴[22 Sep 25 17:58 UTC] No.45337119[source]▶
> Ruby Central has been responsible for RubyGems and Bundler for a long time. This isn't a new development, and I'm honestly very confused about the confusion.

That's the opposite claim from a coup. It's not fair for you to put those words in his mouth.

replies(1): >>45337631 #
throwaway346434[dead post] ◴[22 Sep 25 18:37 UTC] No.45337631[source]▶
[flagged]
1. delichon ◴[22 Sep 25 18:44 UTC] No.45337734[source]▶
He is claiming that Ruby Central has the authority. True or not, that claim is not consistent with a coup. You seem to be catastrophizing and constructing misleading quotes, including inverting his words, not because his claim is not true but because of how he communicated it and the impact of it.
replies(2): >>45338429 #>>45342745 #
2. throwaway346434 ◴[22 Sep 25 19:38 UTC] No.45338429[source]▶
My point is that he chose to communicate the way he did; it is poorly thought out and extremely difficult to accept as an explanation.

Objective tests you yourself can perform.

1) How much of the publication talks about himself? Why is that relevant?

2) How much does it directly provide links, context, history? Can you find the opposing point of view directly linked from it, or is it omitted?

3) From reading the content, does this person represent the board, or not? Do they make any conflicting claims that are difficult to both be true at the same time?

4) A coup d'etat is a "a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government"

Were the people who lost access acting as a governing body? Was the loss of access sudden and unexpected? Did the loss of access follow any of the rules of the governing group? Did the loss of access harm individuals?

With the answers to the above, reflect on the following:

Why would someone write about themselves, their experience, etc for 6 paragraphs? Would you say it is clear they have only been appointed since Jan 2025? Or are they trying to establish themselves as an authority? If they are not attempting to appeal to authority, why is it relevant?

Did they actually apologise? If so, to who? Is it specific? Does it clearly articulate what the person did, admit fault, recognise harm? Or is there downplaying of impact, vague language, downplaying of involvement?

Does it characterise the contrary point of view in a way that trivial uses the concerns? Are the conversations "emotional" or is it implied the people experiencing the negative act are? Is the author emotional?

If you were the person or people affected, would you accept this explanation? If you were the person taking these actions, would you explain why like this? Why or why not?

I strongly encourage you to do this exercise, putting aside feelings or initial responses even if you think I am wrong.

3. JoshTriplett ◴[23 Sep 25 04:07 UTC] No.45342745[source]▶
Most coups happen when someone has power and conflates that with authority.