Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

pup-e.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 286 posts

Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

#151

Post by simonw »

cxr wrote: post #81
simonw wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I brought up LLM usage precisely because the two things I called out here are weird - the kind of details an LLM might add. If that's what happened then it's bad because it leaves people who read the comment confused - hence my questions asking about those. If the author confirms that those pieces I asked about serve an intentional purpose then I don't care if they used an LLM or not. My problem isn't with using LLMs…

What content has been invented?

Maybe none? That's why I asked.

Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

#152

Post by scragz »

ornornor wrote: post #114

I took comfort in the fact that the ruby community seemed miraculously immune from these petty disputes and takeovers from the benevolent entity running the service. Seems like that’s not the case anymore :( Sorry for all the maintainers, that must suck.

I miss the days of "we're nice because matz is nice"

Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

#153

Post by Spivak »

fareesh wrote: post #150

[flagged]

Look I don't even know what sides the various actors in this spat would see themselves on so don't consider what I'm about to say as an endorsement of their beliefs because I don't know what they are.

That being said the freedom of (non-)association is one of the few non-violent means to signal your disapproval of someone else in a way that actually matters. The fact that folks are insulated from the consequences of their actions I think is a big part of how we got here. People spew hateful nonsense and sling accusations at each other that in person would get their teeth knocked out. Refusing to work with or collaborate with someone you consider to be distasteful is pretty mild and not terribly unreasonable even if it makes things awkward.

I can't exactly blame someone for acting on their conscience even if I don't like it. Working with someone who are at odds with despite your differences I consider praiseworthy but obligatory.

Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

#154

Post by bakugo »

lstodd wrote: post #138
bakugo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

#156

Post by awilson5454 »

jmuguy wrote: post #54
thomascountz wrote: post #42

An update from Ruby Central: Strengthening the Stewardship of RubyGems and Bundler https://rubycentral.org/news/strengthening-the-stewardship-o...

So essentially they randomly cut off a bunch of long time maintainers for some vague legal and/or security reasons. If there was real reason to do that in a hurry, that's what we need to see, not a corporate PR message.

100%. I assumed this was inspired by the supply chain attack, but what a horrible way to address this. Reverting it back before revoking it a second time is even more bizarre. Severely mixed messages from leadership, perhaps?

Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

#157

Post by mikemcquaid »

mikemcquaid wrote: post #121
ilikepi wrote: post #104

There is some more context on a post[1] in /r/ruby, including the fact that the maintainers and others had been working on a proposal[2] for a formalized organizational governance structure as recently as yesterday. The latter also adds some context into Mike McQuaid's involvement: the proposal was influenced by the structure put in place by the Homebrew project. [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/1nkzszc/ru…

I'm trying to help, where I can, to mediate. On a call right now about this. Had 4 in the last 24 hours with affected parties past and present on both sides. I'm not involved beyond just caring a lot about Ruby.

Posted an update in a thread (or whatever you're meant to call it) on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mikemcquaid.com/post/3lz7klsyue22f

TL;DR: I've been given a lot of private nuance from both sides here but, even just based how the two sides have treated me personally, it's very hard not to put the blame primarily on RubyCentral. I've been a maintainer on Homebrew for 16 years: it's a hard job. If in doubt: I'll side with maintainers.

Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

#158

Post by schneems »

zorpner wrote: post #146
the_hangman wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been a while but if memory serves me correctly the controversy at that time was actually about him unilaterally deciding that people at basecamp shouldn't be talking about politics in off-topic slack channels after people started trying to organize support for something he didn't agree with. IIRC something like 1/3 of the company quit at that time

Specifically, it was in a meeting called by Jason Fried to address people who were concerned about the ongoing existence of an internal list of "funny customer names" (which by all accounts was extremely racist), in which Ryan Singer (who had reportedly previously posted a fair bit of politically right-wing content on internal forums -- those were all deleted when the "no politics at work" policy was rolled out) repe…

“No politics at work” except for Dave who spends company time posting political blog entries on his company built platform.

FWIW I captured a timeline of events in this post but a lot of the Twitter links are dead now. https://schneems.com/2021/05/12/the-room-where-it-happens-ho...

Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

#159

Post by ursuscamp »

scragz wrote: post #152
ornornor wrote: post #114

I took comfort in the fact that the ruby community seemed miraculously immune from these petty disputes and takeovers from the benevolent entity running the service. Seems like that’s not the case anymore :( Sorry for all the maintainers, that must suck.

I miss the days of "we're nice because matz is nice"

I've been a ruby user for almost 15 years. I've been to several RubyConfs in that time. I have never found that to be true. It's a thin veneer over rampant toxicity and political extremism. Many of the evangelists in the Ruby community garnered a horrible reputation outside of Ruby, then migrated to insular social media applications which no one uses, causing the slow and persistent decline in the popularity of the language.

Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]

#160

Post by lavela »

teknofobi wrote: post #131
lavela wrote: post #116

Welp, so there goes another ecosystem I considered exploring. What almost surprises me the most, is that such a mature ecosystem still doesn't have a formalized governance structure after all this time. How common is this among large and widely-used open source projects?

Problem with package managers are they are quite expensive to run, so hard to manage in an otherwise open source ecosystem. There was some controversy around NPM before the GitHub acquisition https://www.businessinsider.com/npm-cofounder-laurie-voss-re... , which I guess is the exact problem a non-profit such as RubyCentral tried to solve. I would GitHub would be quite well-positioned to set up infrastructure around…

I don't understand yet how that relates to formalizing your decision structures as a group.

I'm sure NPM as a company has some form of decision hierarchy and RubyCentral does as well, but it seems like Ruby Gems doesn't (or didn't). I learned the hard way that writing this down is one of the first thing you should do in any kind of group formation process.

I get that organically grown tech projects don't have that from the start (and that they might not immediately recognize that they're a group at all), but I'd reckoned that an organization of the size of Ruby Gems, with such an importance, would have taken care of that a while ago and I think it's quite irresponsible that they didn't.

Post reply on HN