the mayor is dumb as rocks the witness regularly forgets to look at stuff the deacon makes his own rules the crew have the object permanence of a tank full of goldfish and the polecats seem intent on wreaking as much chaos on the project as they can
this is peak entertainment i swear
This is leadership
Hey @ufuk.dev @valeriecodes.bsky.social (not sure if any other RC board members are on bsky), what is your response to this? Hint: it probably should include a public apology and concrete plans to bring in new leadership who know what they're doing.
Support each other, we're stronger together. Solidarity. ❤️https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity
I was in the room with @mike.contribsys.com when we confronted Ruby Central’s executive leadership over their decision to invite DHH to RailsConf (which sponsors were not made aware of ahead of time). They knew that multiple sponsors had a problem with the continued relationship.
All this shit makes me never want to use Ruby again.
Also, I find it helpful that the article I linked to makes the distinction between the RubyGems and Bundler repositories (which are community-run), and the rubygems.org platform which hosts an instance of the RubyGems repo, which is run by RC. Taking over the GH repos specifically IS a hostile move.
Specifically, the post by valeriecodes.bsky.social which stated "Just to be clear, Ruby Central has not taken money from DHH/Basecamp" is a deliberate attempt to mislead the Ruby community, in that DHH is a board member of Shopify, who seems to be pulling all the strings here.
Unless the Ruby Central board issues a forceful and specific denial of the facts presented in this article, it appears that @ufuk.dev and others have been deliberately misrepresenting what happened regarding the hostile takeover of the RubyGems and Bundler GH repos.
joel.drapper.me/p/rubygems-t...
Everything I've seen in the actions (or lack thereof) that have been taken by the board, and now in this behind the scenes description, indicate to me that the board is in way over their heads. Resign, and get some competent people to step up.
Not going to get too into the odd mention of some threat of funding being lost if they didn't do this (DHH, is that you?), but clearly this threat was made with a deadline attached to it, and this article flat-out states that the board hadn't acted yet with less than 24 hours to go.
If this is correct, I take back my previous repost that mentioned that Marty (the manager responsible for rescinding access) should resign; instead, the entire board should resign.
apiguy.substack.com/p/a-board-me...
No, it’s fine. That “no politics” stuff was near the start of DHH’s descent into publicly sharing more and more far-right wing beliefs. The most recent thing was this completely batshit racist post on his own blog: world.hey.com/dhh/as-i-rem...
I think what she’s trying to get at is that the recent hostile takeover of RubyGems by Ruby Central was not financially motivated in any way by Basecamp or DHH. I believe that’s probably the case. But she should have just said that.
So while it’s true that, based on publicly available evidence, Ruby Central has technically never cashed a check from Basecamp, their work was still at least funded by Basecamp’s dollars in the past. This makes saying “Ruby Central has not taken money from Basecamp” problematic, in my mind.
Ruby Central acquired Ruby Together in 2021. Ruby Together was another nonprofit that was responsible for maintaining RubyGems, bundler, etc. Ruby Together very publicly accepted donations from Basecamp for at least several years.
Valerie Woolard @valeriecodes.bsky.social Just to be clear, Ruby Central has not taken money from DHH/Basecamp.
The president of the Ruby Central board posted this, and she has disabled all quotes and replies on her posts, so I have to screenshot it. While it’s true that there is no evidence that the org named Ruby Central has taken direct funding from Basecamp/DHH, the full story is more nuanced.
Even better if RC would issue a detailed statement containing an explanation and an apology for the atrocious way this has been handled so far. From my perspective, if that doesn't happen, I'll be looking to use and fund any RubyGems forks that pop up that aren't affiliated with RC.
If 1) I'm not missing anything, and 2) you weren't lying, and instead you were just uninformed, I think the community would really appreciate a retraction and apology for anything you stated that wasn't true.
Screenshot of a portion of Ruby Central's 2021 IRS form 990, with a bold red circle around the checked "Corporation" checkbox next to "Form of organization"
"It is not a company, it is a non-profit formed (by the creators of Rubygems, no less)"
The issue of whether Ruby Central is a non-profit is not at all relevant to the question asked, so I don't understand this reply. But to confirm for anyone else reading, Ruby Central is a non-profit corporation.
Also, to be crystal clear, my original message said "and they’re lying, or at least grossly misrepresenting the truth." So I admitted straight away that I wasn't sure whether you were being intentional about it.
Don't assert that you know why I did something when you clearly don't. I am accusing you of lying because at least one of the things in the original message of yours still appears to be a lie that anyone looking at the public `rubygems` repo can verify for themselves.
So, "they also didn't need commit rights for the work they did" still appears to be a blatant falsehood, and the administrators of the `rubygems` repo clearly trusted this contributor enough to have such access for literally years.
What am I missing?
Okay, so I took a look at the 8 most recent commits in the graph you posted, and of those, half of them were merges of PRs.
This wasn't a new thing, either; the author has merge commits going all the way back to 2020.
Okay, so you expect a paid contractor to open PRs and have a full-time employee merge them? I’ve never worked anywhere that restricts contractors in this way in 25 years of software development.
3) You wrote “They also didn't need commit rights for the work they did” and then provide a screenshot showing 8 commits. How are they supposed to make those 8 commits without commit rights?
1) Maybe, but I trust the contributor by default over a board member of the org who has just taken over the repos.
2) that message doesn’t appear to be part of the thread I quoted, which is why I’d didn’t see it.
And I apologize that my original post expressing this singled you out; that was not my intention, and I am referring to the board as a whole. But it still wasn’t an ad hominem.
You, on the other hand, committed an “ad hominem fallacy fallacy”: jumping to the “ad hominem” accusation when there was none, in an effort to avoid engaging with the argument.
An ad hominem requires me to be attacking the person solely as the substance of my argument, and I am not doing that; I’m instead saying that if the board feels they did a good job here, that is evidence by itself that they are not competent.
