Here's the thing. They could have put up link to a git repository where others can follow along with the maintenance of this project, but here isn't one. There is a list of maintainers explicitly mentioned on this page but no link to the git repository. This leads me to think this project is not about the code but about the people.
Gem.coop
151–160 of 331 posts
Re: Gem.coop
#152Just a thought of mine: why don’t we switch fully to git? Commit signing, tag signing, Decentralize. Doesn’t that sound like a good alternativ?
The git protocol is more complex and harder to scale. It's especially wasteful if people are going to redownload all packages every time their amnesiac CI runs. Single-file archives are much easier to distribute. Digests and signatures have standard algorithms, not unique to git. Key/identity management is the hard part, but git doesn't solve it for you (if you don't confuse git with GitHub).
git bundles exist to solve the single-file caching and distribution problems
Re: Gem.coop
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When Ruby Together first launched in 2015, the website suggested donations went to pay "our team" (...) This resulted in a nonzero number of donors believing they were funding the work of people like Steve Klabnik, Aaron Patterson, and Sarah Mei, when in fact only Andre was being paid at the time. This a fact. By this alone I don't think Andre Arko is an honest person.
Back in the day, nobody ever had said to me that they believed I was earning money from Ruby Together. This whole thing was speculation at best. And regardless, once it was suggested that this may be a possibility, it was immediately changed to be unambiguous. André is absolutely a standup individual. I have tried to stay in good terms with the other people involved in this (except DHH), but this claim was always rid…
I was misremembering it. Now that I've checked, it's clear that the claim was that the money was for paying "the team" [1], which consisted of André Arko and David Radcliffe [2]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150919025358/https://rubytoget...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20150919025603/https://rubytoget...
Re: Gem.coop
#154Here's the thing. They could have put up link to a git repository where others can follow along with the maintenance of this project, but here isn't one. There is a list of maintainers explicitly mentioned on this page but no link to the git repository. This leads me to think this project is not about the code but about the people.
Source lives here: https://github.com/gem-coop
Re: Gem.coop
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Back in the day, nobody ever had said to me that they believed I was earning money from Ruby Together. This whole thing was speculation at best. And regardless, once it was suggested that this may be a possibility, it was immediately changed to be unambiguous. André is absolutely a standup individual. I have tried to stay in good terms with the other people involved in this (except DHH), but this claim was always rid…
I was misremembering it. Now that I've checked, it's clear that the claim was that the money was for paying "the team" [1], which consisted of André Arko and David Radcliffe [2] [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20150919025358/https://rubytoget... [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20150919025603/https://rubytoget...
It's all good, you were quoting the blog post.
Frankly that page is even more clear than I remembered. All of this happened so long ago.
Re: Gem.coop
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm starkly opposed to this ridiculous fragmenting of the community. They can and should all go work out contribution agreements with RubyCentral and get over their egos.
What makes you think they _haven't_ tried to work things out with Ruby Central? As per a separate article[1], this seems to be a last resort: > “Since Ruby Central has informed us they will never allow us to continue working on the projects they now claim they own, that we successfully maintained and operated for the last ten years, the former RubyGems team is launching gem.coop today.” [1]: https://socket.dev/blog/g…
I suspect many of these maintainers are making absurd ultimatums of RubyCentral.
Re: Gem.coop
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's some weird opinions coming from mostly DHH. My personal take is that they're blatantly racist, but everyone can have their own Here's some fun facts: - DHH enforced a "No Politics at Work" policy. - DHH wrote a post expressing that he wouldn't want to live in London anymore because it's "no longer full of native Brits", and expressed support for a Tommy Robinson march he called "heartwarming". Tommy Robinson…
Ironic that DHH is politically active enough that it affects his day to day activities and public perception of his company - kind of the exact opposite of his own policy he expects his employees to abide by.
He posts about it on his personal blog, not on his company Slack.
Re: Gem.coop
#158So, ignoring everything that got us here, what do people think about this? As I see it, there is the original rubygems, which has lost all of it's maintainers, and this new one, that has most of the original active maintainers? (how many were there before? it has most of the ones I think about, but I didn't know who was active over there. I mostly saw activity from deivid and didn't know about most of the others to b…
I think right off the bat since they chose .coop as their TLD, a lot of corporate firewalls auto-block them and they have immediately decided to fight an uphill battle to get allow-listed to be a gem repo. This does not bode well for the team having the socio-technical savviness to see this project through.
How will anything ever change we're still guilted into thinking about crappy default corporate firewalls when choosing a TLD?
Though there's no way that this is something you care about, cmon.
Re: Gem.coop
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Yes, I agree. And some of the “admins” even announced publicly many days ago they were launching a competitor tool and were funding raising for it. I’d not trust the system to such “admin”." https://bsky.app/profile/rmfranca.bsky.social/post/3lz7alpob... See https://spinel.coop/ "Spinel develops rv, the next-generation Ruby version manager"
This doesn't explain how rv is threatening rubygems in any way.
They were using the name "rubygems" to fund-raise for not-"rubygems."
Re: Gem.coop
#160Here's the thing. They could have put up link to a git repository where others can follow along with the maintenance of this project, but here isn't one. There is a list of maintainers explicitly mentioned on this page but no link to the git repository. This leads me to think this project is not about the code but about the people.
It's a package repository. A link to an Ansible repository or whatever doesn't need to be in the first announcement.
> This leads me to think this project is not about the code but about the people.
Trust is of utmost importance to a package repository. Even more so than code. A hostile takeover, like the one that occurred with RubyGems, fundamentally undermines that trust. In contrast, an alternative run by the original maintainers who have built years of trust, represents a positive shift.
Unfortunately, it seems that your conclusion was drawn before your justifications. When you invent justification though, at least make sure you don't undermine your own position. Where's the prominent link to the Git repo on rubygems.org top page?
https://web.archive.org/web/20251003112525/https://rubygems....