←back to thread

A board member's perspective of the RubyGems controversy

(apiguy.substack.com)
104 points Qwuke | 5 comments | 21 Sep 25 19:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.037s | source
Show context
sc68cal ◴[22 Sep 25 17:50 UTC] No.45336997[source]▶
This story is missing any context around what occurred. The only thing I was able to find was by searching, and I came to this PDF statement.

https://pup-e.com/goodbye-rubygems.pdf

> On September 9th, with no warning or communication, a RubyGems maintainer unilaterally:

> renamed the “RubyGems” GitHub enterprise to “Ruby Central”,

> added non-maintainer Marty Haught of Ruby Central, and

> removed every other maintainer of the RubyGems project.

> On September 18th, with no explanation, Marty Haught revoked GitHub organization membership for all admins on the RubyGems, Bundler, and RubyGems.org maintainer teams

Which is important context that was left out of this board member's statement.

replies(4): >>45337310 #>>45337618 #>>45338226 #>>45338752 #
caymanjim ◴[22 Sep 25 18:36 UTC] No.45337618[source]▶
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.
replies(7): >>45337891 #>>45338023 #>>45339094 #>>45339102 #>>45339502 #>>45340670 #>>45343956 #
1. caboteria ◴[22 Sep 25 20:34 UTC] No.45339094[source]▶
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.

replies(1): >>45339663 #
2. caymanjim ◴[22 Sep 25 21:26 UTC] No.45339663[source]▶
I dunno what you read, but nothing I wrote included any attacks, personal or otherwise.
replies(3): >>45339796 #>>45340559 #>>45340722 #
3. albedoa ◴[22 Sep 25 21:35 UTC] No.45339796[source]▶
Ah, you're constructively accusing the author of "[leaving] out a whole lot of context". Non-derogatorily.
4. hinkley ◴[22 Sep 25 22:46 UTC] No.45340559[source]▶
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.

5. hluska ◴[22 Sep 25 23:05 UTC] No.45340722[source]▶
> 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.