I find this post pretty unsatisfying: it sticks very closely to factual claims that aren’t particularly controversial (see: access control) while avoiding the e

I find this post pretty unsatisfying: it sticks very closely to factual claims that aren’t particularly controversial (see: access control) while avoiding the elephant in the room, which is that the Ruby community sees any legitimate security concerns as pretextual for a sponsor-backed takeover. I think it’s pretty hard to avoid acknowledging this, which gives the distinct impression that the post (and by extension Ruby Central’s current leadership) are not particularly committed to transparency on the issue. I’d love to be wrong about that.