5 ms·

There is some more context on a post[1] in /r/ruby, including the fact that the maintainers and others had been working on a proposal[2] for a formalized organi

There is some more context on a post[1] in /r/ruby, including the fact that the maintainers and others had been working on a proposal[2] for a formalized organizational governance structure as recently as yesterday. The latter also adds some context into Mike McQuaid's involvement: the proposal was influenced by the structure put in place by the Homebrew project. [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/1nkzszc/ruby_centrals_attack_on_rubygems/ https://old.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/1nkzszc/ruby_centrals... [2]: https://github.com/rubygems/rfcs/pull/61 https://github.com/rubygems/rfcs/pull/61

mikemcquaid 1y ago
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.
- mikemcquaid 1y ago
  Posted an update in a thread (or whatever you're meant to call it) on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mikemcquaid.com/post/3lz7klsyue22f 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 side with maintainers.
  - yawaramin 1y ago
    Sure, but it's two different things. Maintainers are in charge of their projects, and Ruby Central is in charge of the package index. Each has different priorities, which is fine. If they can't find a way to live with each other, maybe a parting of the ways is required.
    - mikemcquaid 1y ago
      Parting of ways? Sure. In this case they are in charge of the package index but have removed most maintainers from their projects, implicitly taking charge there too. This is a problem.
      - zem 1y ago
        do they see themselves as more like debian, where the ruby gem and the open source project it packages are two separate things?
      - yawaramin 1y ago
        How can they remove maintainers from their own projects? If my project is yawaramin/foobar, how can Ruby Central remove me as the mantainer from there?
        ilikepi 1y ago
        This thread has probably run its course, and newer postings[1] have more information, but I'll respond anyway if it's helpful... > How can they remove maintainers from their own projects? If my project is yawaramin/foobar... The official RubyGems projects in question were under a GitHub organizational account, not a single user's account. A subset of the maintainers had the "owner" flag on the org. One of those folks basically initiated the takeover. See [2] for a more detailed recounting. [1]: Shopify, pulling strings at Ruby Central, forces Bundler and RubyGems takeover - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348390 - September 2025 (107+ comments) [2]: https://joel.drapper.me/p/rubygems-takeover/#the-takeover https://joel.drapper.me/p/rubygems-takeover/#the-takeover
        yawaramin 1y ago
        That's a dumb move though, isn't it? The original maintainers will now just move their projects somewhere else, and the 'official' projects have now effectively been killed. This is a suicidal move for the Ruby ecosystem.
- esnard 1y ago
  I know nothing about the Ruby ecosystem, but I really do appreciate that someone cares that much to mediate this mess. Thank you.
swat535 1y ago
Also notable reply from DHH: "Ruby Central has been the RubyGems maintainer and operator since the beginning. They paid people to work on it (including this now disgruntled former contractor). They're improving their practices and protocols. This is good." https://x.com/dhh/status/1969168477475786830 https://x.com/dhh/status/1969168477475786830
- knzai 1y ago
  A bit of useful context for DHH’s response: he’s had beef with at least one of these maintainers before, and tried to get him removed from stuff. As André Arko’s employer at his day job at the time, I was tangential to it, so I don’t know all the details, and my memory is imperfect. But as I understand it, DHH either organized or was part of a group of prominent rubyists who wrote a letter to the Board of Directors of the trade guild (or some other similar unusual non-profit structure) that André had organized to help get funding to support the open source work he and some others did for Ruby infrastructure like Bundler and/or Rubygems. I don’t know the exact terms of the sanctions they sought, but in the end it resulted in his orgs work getting folded into RubyCentral, iirc. For some reason it seems they disapproved of how André had found a way to get paid for working on open source. He was managing to pay himself and some other people a good wage for part-time open source work. He was even managing to get a bit more diversity involved in it than a lot of Ruby open source infra work typically has (employing a black trans woman SE as part of this). Whatever their actual motivations they disapproved of André founding his own org and running it as he did. The irony of their most prominent signatory getting rich off open source, via a different less direct avenue of monetization seemed entirely lost on them. Anyway, I think it blew up in their face and things got settled out into what the status quo of rubygems maintenance was since then. Now, I’ve heard rumors that perhaps this is actually related. RubyCentral has had a rough few years and DHH has more than a little pull with at least one of their largest funders. It’d be incredibly petty to do something like dangling funding in front of RC if they’d finish icing out maintainers that he didn’t see eye to eye with. But it would certainly fit the way the events happened. I don’t know anything directly enough to swear by this and wouldn’t want to implicate anyone even if I did. But I guess look at the known character of the people involved and draw your own conclusions. Does this seem in character to prior behaviors?

mikemcquaid 1y ago

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.

mikemcquaid 1y ago
Posted an update in a thread (or whatever you're meant to call it) on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/mikemcquaid.com/post/3lz7klsyue22f 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 side with maintainers.
- yawaramin 1y ago
  Sure, but it's two different things. Maintainers are in charge of their projects, and Ruby Central is in charge of the package index. Each has different priorities, which is fine. If they can't find a way to live with each other, maybe a parting of the ways is required.
  - mikemcquaid 1y ago
    Parting of ways? Sure. In this case they are in charge of the package index but have removed most maintainers from their projects, implicitly taking charge there too. This is a problem.
    - zem 1y ago
      do they see themselves as more like debian, where the ruby gem and the open source project it packages are two separate things?
    - yawaramin 1y ago
      How can they remove maintainers from their own projects? If my project is yawaramin/foobar, how can Ruby Central remove me as the mantainer from there?
      - ilikepi 1y ago
        This thread has probably run its course, and newer postings[1] have more information, but I'll respond anyway if it's helpful... > How can they remove maintainers from their own projects? If my project is yawaramin/foobar... The official RubyGems projects in question were under a GitHub organizational account, not a single user's account. A subset of the maintainers had the "owner" flag on the org. One of those folks basically initiated the takeover. See [2] for a more detailed recounting. [1]: Shopify, pulling strings at Ruby Central, forces Bundler and RubyGems takeover - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45348390 - September 2025 (107+ comments) [2]: https://joel.drapper.me/p/rubygems-takeover/#the-takeover https://joel.drapper.me/p/rubygems-takeover/#the-takeover
        yawaramin 1y ago
        That's a dumb move though, isn't it? The original maintainers will now just move their projects somewhere else, and the 'official' projects have now effectively been killed. This is a suicidal move for the Ruby ecosystem.
esnard 1y ago
I know nothing about the Ruby ecosystem, but I really do appreciate that someone cares that much to mediate this mess. Thank you.

swat535 1y ago

Also notable reply from DHH: "Ruby Central has been the RubyGems maintainer and operator since the beginning. They paid people to work on it (including this now disgruntled former contractor). They're improving their practices and protocols. This is good." https://x.com/dhh/status/1969168477475786830 https://x.com/dhh/status/1969168477475786830

knzai 1y ago
A bit of useful context for DHH’s response: he’s had beef with at least one of these maintainers before, and tried to get him removed from stuff. As André Arko’s employer at his day job at the time, I was tangential to it, so I don’t know all the details, and my memory is imperfect. But as I understand it, DHH either organized or was part of a group of prominent rubyists who wrote a letter to the Board of Directors of the trade guild (or some other similar unusual non-profit structure) that André had organized to help get funding to support the open source work he and some others did for Ruby infrastructure like Bundler and/or Rubygems. I don’t know the exact terms of the sanctions they sought, but in the end it resulted in his orgs work getting folded into RubyCentral, iirc. For some reason it seems they disapproved of how André had found a way to get paid for working on open source. He was managing to pay himself and some other people a good wage for part-time open source work. He was even managing to get a bit more diversity involved in it than a lot of Ruby open source infra work typically has (employing a black trans woman SE as part of this). Whatever their actual motivations they disapproved of André founding his own org and running it as he did. The irony of their most prominent signatory getting rich off open source, via a different less direct avenue of monetization seemed entirely lost on them. Anyway, I think it blew up in their face and things got settled out into what the status quo of rubygems maintenance was since then. Now, I’ve heard rumors that perhaps this is actually related. RubyCentral has had a rough few years and DHH has more than a little pull with at least one of their largest funders. It’d be incredibly petty to do something like dangling funding in front of RC if they’d finish icing out maintainers that he didn’t see eye to eye with. But it would certainly fit the way the events happened. I don’t know anything directly enough to swear by this and wouldn’t want to implicate anyone even if I did. But I guess look at the known character of the people involved and draw your own conclusions. Does this seem in character to prior behaviors?