[dead]
Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
171–180 of 286 posts
Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
#172An 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.
It’s not clear to me - did they entirely cut them off, or did they reduce their role as admin of the GitHub org?
If so, I'm not defending it, and I could understand why someone would feel insulted by that - but also get why an org doesn't want too many with elevated privileges.
Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Also consider that many people are not in the US and are not obliged to wade into US politics.
Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There is no "neutral stance," only ignorance of bias.
Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
Nothing, I'll give you that.
It's just frustrating to see so little action taken against those with actual power who are doing quite horrible stuff
Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
#176For those like me who are not Ruby users/devs, it might be good to explain who exactly Ruby Central is? I assumed they were analogous to Python Soft Foundation or Linux Foundation etc. as the entity of maintainers/owners/whatever of Ruby. But it seems that they have nothing to do with the ruby-lang.org site where the Ruby binaries itself are distributed. Instead, their own site appears to primarily list them as respo…
Until a few years ago, RubyCentral was very similar to the Python Software Foundation in that it managed all the infrastructure and the main conferences - everything except language development.
A few years ago, RubyCentral lost power when the Rails Foundation was created (most of the Ruby world revolves around Rails). The Rails Foundation organizes its own yearly conference, and RubyCentral stopped hosting theirs.
However, RubyCentral still controls the package management tools and the package registry.
Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
just double checked, there is a separate section of the article that has the "foreign born" population of london, which is 36%, so he's definitely excluding any non-white english people there.
I used to work at a Ruby on Rails shop many years ago (New Bamboo, now part of ThoughtBot) which is in London. I got pointed to the blog post, and it was such a strikingly-bad hot take that I had to write a response: http://paulbjensen.co.uk/2025/09/17/on-dhhs-as-i-remember-lo... In my opinion, initially I thought "Oh David's been sucked into some kind of social media bubble (on X) or disinformation space", but then…
Thanks for your post! Is there a way to add a comment there?
Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
The American Ruby community... They tried to cancel Matz for not supporting weird DEI corporate speak in the TOS, they've been trying to cancel DHH for years for his mild conservative lean. There's also a weird contingent who keep trying to push stuff like TypeScript for Rails and typing for Ruby, at one point they wanted to fork Rails when DHH made Hotwire default (they wanted React), etc.. Outside the weird US corp…
> mild conservative lean you're whitewashing that he's racist
Do you have a source for this?
Also, do you watch his podcast? His host (who's literally also one of his employees) is a black woman. Not proof he's not racist, but suggests probably not.
Unless you just assume anyone to the right of you equals racist, which lots of leftists do. Which is one of many reasons why the global right is rising...
Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
#179I can already see the future: The Rails Foundation will start its own central gem registry and set of forked tools. Then, RailsCentral will lose its sponsors and fade into irrelevance.
Nevermind, this tweet (mostly) disproves my prediction:
Re: Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf]
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Inaction is a manifestation of one of two things: ignorance, or conscious decision to not act. I agree that strictly only the latter can be considered an act, while the former .. well. Not an act, but a then the question arises if an unconscious person can even be considered a person _in_relation_to_having_a_conversation_with_them_. That last point I must even more press.
I think this is what we are discussing. Please share your viewpoint on this.