That's a particularly one sided account of the events. Ruby Central wanted to oust one or two specific maintainers because of a rocky relationship (whether it

That's a particularly one sided account of the events. Ruby Central wanted to oust one or two specific maintainers because of a rocky relationship (whether it was warranted or not is not my point). It later backfired when a majority of the other maintainers resigned. > They could start to gatekeep or even worse add some sort of paid version. That's a funny accusation given that's something the ousted maintainers now behind gem.coop wanted to do a while ago.