221–230 of 286 posts
An update from Ruby Central: Strengthening the Stewardship of RubyGems and Bundler https://rubycentral.org/news/strengthening-the-stewardship-o...
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.
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
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.
On the one hand, I do agree that endless debating over relatively minor ideological differences is pointless, and only going to lead to time-wasting and resentment. I certainly have the same desire for some peace and quiet, and being able to focus solely on my work.
On the other hand, we live in a society where questions like "am I allowed to use the office bathroom" have been made political, and where your coworkers are genuinely worried about whether they'll get arrested and deported from the country for no reason whatsoever during next week's sprint planning. Their issues are real and by definition require the business as an entity to respond to political developments.
You might have the luxury of putting your head in the sand and pretending they don't exist, but that's not going to magically solve your coworkers' problems. Unless the company wants to restrict its hiring to the absolutely minuscule group of people who will never be impacted by politics, it'll have to engage in some level of political discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The real question is who isn't American? When someone says "X is for Xes" they are implicitly saying "and not for Ys". If you don't believe that's the case, then tell me exactly what that phrase means other than to exclude some group. To claim "these are not real Americans".
> who isn't American?
Is this a trick question? People who were not born in America are clearly not American, save for naturalized citizens and a handful of other caveats. If you were born in Iceland, Greenland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark (just picking some traditionally/predominantly-white countries to really drive it home) and are not the child of a diplomat or even a citizen: you are not American.
Seriously: do you believe you are Japanese? If you actually are Japanese, do you think you're Peruvian, too? Are you also a Liechtensteiner? People are citizens of specific nations, believe it or not - this is not some new, misunderstood concept.
> means other than to exclude some group
Why is it a foregone conclusion that exclusion is automatically unjust?
Are countries not permitted to exclude people? Again: this is not based on race. Does one have an automatic right to immigrate wherever they please?
But, none of these are a good idea. Any level of centralization leads to disappointment eventually.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I also do not highly prioritize gaining any more information about the situation You acknowledge your ignorance and then refuse to remedy that. This is an act. Perfectly acceptable and understandable. But what is more important it's deliberate and you accept responsibility for any and all consequences. > I suppose I may differ from the average person in at least one way — that being that, if I were tricked into har…
> refuse to remedy They did not say this. They said they would not highly prioritize it. Which is, of course, reasonable: given two topics, I have little metric to prioritize learning about one over the other. I have no way to know that I am prioritizing my research adequately.
I would like to put the emphasis on doing this consciously. This is the important point. Too many people just do not think or know what introspection is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks Mike, I editted, and asked this: > Why do the maintainers have a problem with this? I thought the stated reason was about RC removing everyone's access with no warning. I seem to remember some of DHH's controversy due to banning politics at basecamp or something. Is it related to that?
https://world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-remember-london-e7d38e64
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"