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

161–170 of 286 posts

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

#161

Post by gizzlon »

mijoharas wrote: post #92
davidw wrote: post #89

Seems relevant: https://ruby.social/@getajobmike/115231677684734669 I'm just reposting it though. I haven't followed any of this myself.

> The unstated reason for this change was that many of the existing Rubygems maintainers have recently quit (including their only full-time engineer) due to their continued relationship with DHH. Can someone expand on what this means? Is it a continued relationship between Ruby Central and DHH, or the maintainers and DHH? Why does the other party have a problem with that? EDIT: It seems the post was clarified since I…

> maintainers have recently quit (including their only full-time engineer) due to their continued relationship with DHH.

Ehh, what?! Basically 0 developers in the US have quit as a protest against literal totalitarianism, major and obvious corruption, the end of vaccines (will kill countless) and the end of USAID (already killed.. how many kids?).

But, sure, DHH.. that's where we draw the line!

FFS

Edit: maybe I misunderstood why they quit, quite confused. Still..

Edit 2: Unclear if this has anything to do with DHH? And it turns out I also disagree with some of his views. But, it still stands, he's writing a blog, not literally killing kids. Where's the mass quittings for those people?

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

#163

Post by choilive »

jacques_chester wrote: post #98

At Shopify I was the person who first proposed that we needed to stump up $$$ for RubyGems (and only by implication Ruby Central). This is not what I had in mind and now I'm embarrassed that I helped make it possible.

Sounds like Shopify has some leverage then to open a line of comms with Ruby Central. "Explain yourselves or we will pull funding"

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

#164

Post by pmontra »

vintagedave wrote: post #140
bradgessler wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rhiannon worked with Ruby Central for a bit, left a few weeks ago, and just shared this: https://bsky.app/profile/rhiannon.io/post/3lz6zcflg2s26

Post not found, what did it say?

Interesting. It worked a few hours ago. Sorry, I didn't make a copy of the text.

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

#165

Post by krmbzds »

the_hangman wrote: post #135
krmbzds wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Am I the only one who feels like discussing politics at work is inappropriate? While I'm not apolitical, I appreciate having a space where the constant bombardment of politics is momentarily absent. It's refreshing to focus on work without the need for political discourse.

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

#166

Post by arccy »

gizzlon wrote: post #161
mijoharas wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The unstated reason for this change was that many of the existing Rubygems maintainers have recently quit (including their only full-time engineer) due to their continued relationship with DHH. Can someone expand on what this means? Is it a continued relationship between Ruby Central and DHH, or the maintainers and DHH? Why does the other party have a problem with that? EDIT: It seems the post was clarified since I…

> maintainers have recently quit (including their only full-time engineer) due to their continued relationship with DHH. Ehh, what?! Basically 0 developers in the US have quit as a protest against literal totalitarianism, major and obvious corruption, the end of vaccines (will kill countless) and the end of USAID (already killed.. how many kids?). But, sure, DHH.. that's where we draw the line! FFS Edit: maybe I misu…

what do those things have to do with Ruby? whereas DHH has a clear link

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

#167

Post by TehCorwiz »

thomascountz wrote: post #42

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

> Moving forward, only engineers employed or contracted by Ruby Central will hold administrative permissions to the RubyGems.org service.

Several of the people removed are employees or contractors of Ruby Central. This doesn't pass the smell test. Not to mention it's post-facto in that they did all of this before notifying anyone.

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

#169

Post by byroot »

TehCorwiz wrote: post #167
thomascountz wrote: post #42

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

> Moving forward, only engineers employed or contracted by Ruby Central will hold administrative permissions to the RubyGems.org service. Several of the people removed are employees or contractors of Ruby Central. This doesn't pass the smell test. Not to mention it's post-facto in that they did all of this before notifying anyone.

> Several of the people removed are employees or contractors of Ruby Central.

Who?

> Not to mention it's post-facto in that they did all of this before notifying anyone.

Isn't that pretty much the number one rule when restricting accesses? First remove accesses, then communicate?

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

#170

Post by krmbzds »

woodruffw wrote: post #144
krmbzds wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I’m not seeing how this is related to the subject of the thread. But also, I think DHH’s politics are manifestly controversial: downplaying that doesn’t make for a good argument.

Yes, the argument was: You shouldn't freeze the bank accounts of people (trucker or not) just because you disagree with them. I don't see how this can be seen as controversial. The relation to the subject of the thread is Ruby Central. Here's the relation: https://www.mermaidchart.com/play#pako:eNqrVkrOT0lVslJKL0osy...
Post reply on HN