4 ms·

Your addition also misses an important part where the only reason he was able to do that was because the servers were forcibly taken from the previous owners fo

by saghm 1y ago

Your addition also misses an important part where the only reason he was able to do that was because the servers were forcibly taken from the previous owners for the ostensible purpose of security, but the new regime forgot to change the passwords as part of that. At this point, it's probable that any attempt to just list the pertinent events isn't going to end up being as neutral as one might hope because even the choice of what context to include or exclude is itself editorial. This is the same lesson people might learn in a high school history class, just applied to something much more recent.

ameliaquining 1y ago
That's not accurate; the monetization proposal happened before the revocation of permissions. The controversy about various accesses that may or may not have been unauthorized (depending on whose story you believe) came later. Perfect neutrality is unachievable but that doesn't mean that every possible way of presenting the facts is equally valid, or even that it's impossible to distinguish presentations that are or aren't missing important context (see, e.g., the surprising success of Twitter's Community Notes).
tptacek 1y ago
Wait, you think the former maintainer breaking into Ruby Central's AWS account and changing its root password makes the former maintainers look better?
- typpilol 1y ago
  that's the one thing I've heard them not address yet is the changing of the passwords.
  - dismalaf 1y ago
    Arko kind of did address it in his most recent blog post. He claims he was doing what was in Ruby Central's best interest. Unfortunately for him he basically admitted to a crime because it came after he was terminated. He tried appealing to community and whatnot but anyone who's ever worked for a corporation knows that once you're terminated, it doesn't matter if HR forgot to take away your credentials or not, you simply don't attempt to access anything ever again. Having keys to something doesn't make you the owner.
    - jcmfernandes 1y ago
      He stated that he didn't know he had been terminated. RC admitted that no harm had been done. Yes, he should have communicated changing the password.
      - tptacek 1y ago
        He changed the AWS root password for the account.
        jcmfernandes 1y ago
        Yes, and he already explained why he did it. Yes, he should have communicated it clearly. That's on him. At the same time, why didn't RC call him to ask? Was it easier to write about a security INCIDENT throwing shade at Arko? With that said, let's keep focused on the real issue: RC did a hostile takeover of the projects. That's not been properly disputed so far. Matz is, therefore, accepting to steward stolen projects.
        tptacek 1y ago
        It was a security incident!
        dismalaf 1y ago
        It doesn't matter why you break into your former employer's server. That's the point. > Matz is, therefore, accepting to steward stolen projects. You know Arko didn't even start working on Rubygems until it was nearly 10 years old, right? One of the original authors is in here and on X saying he supports it being taken over by RubyCore. Which matters much more than whatever the maintainers who were locked out think.
        jcmfernandes 1y ago
        > It doesn't matter why you break into your former employer's server. Arko already stated that he didn't know he had been fired. Geez. > You know Arko didn't even start working on Rubygems until it was nearly 10 years old, right? The project was stolen from a set of maintainers, not just Arko. Let's stick to the facts: someone with admin rights over the repos revoked the access of other admins without their consent. What do you call this? > One of the original authors is in here and on X saying he supports it being taken over by RubyCore. Which matters much more than whatever the maintainers who were locked out think. How in the world is that relevant? I have a lot of respect for Rich, but he wasn't a maintainer.
- soraminazuki 1y ago
  That's the narrative from the new Ruby Central, which feels like a wild distortion of the actual situation. You’re likely aware, though it’s worth mentioning, that the new owners ousted all existing maintainers without any explanation[1]. This follows a prior incident where access was revoked and later restored, with assurances that it was a mistake. This situation can only be viewed as a malicious attack, in which only the new owners had a full understanding of what transpired. Changing the password was a reasonable and appropriate response that any competent person in a similar position would've considered. I’m shocked that we seem to be experiencing a Freenode 2.0 situation, but with some supporting the usurpers instead of the longstanding maintainers. It’s only been four years since the Freenode debacle, yet certain types of people seem to have grown bolder since then. A "win" for freedom of expression, huh? [1]: https://pup-e.com/goodbye-rubygems.pdf https://pup-e.com/goodbye-rubygems.pdf
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Did he or did he not log in to the AWS root account after losing his own credentials and change the root password? I don't need paragraphs of explication following that. Seems simple!
    - soraminazuki 1y ago
      You take issue with me using 148 words in my comment? Just 8 hours before you wrote that, you spent more words than I did downplaying problems with AI powered mass surveillance cameras. Are rules something you live by or something that you arbitrarily impose on others? It’s telling that you can write multiple paragraphs claiming the moon is made of cheese while expecting others to communicate only in brief, misleading soundbites.
      - yawaramin 1y ago
        It's a yes or no question.
        soraminazuki 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

by saghm 1y ago

ameliaquining 1y ago

That's not accurate; the monetization proposal happened before the revocation of permissions. The controversy about various accesses that may or may not have been unauthorized (depending on whose story you believe) came later. Perfect neutrality is unachievable but that doesn't mean that every possible way of presenting the facts is equally valid, or even that it's impossible to distinguish presentations that are or aren't missing important context (see, e.g., the surprising success of Twitter's Community Notes).

tptacek 1y ago

Wait, you think the former maintainer breaking into Ruby Central's AWS account and changing its root password makes the former maintainers look better?

typpilol 1y ago
that's the one thing I've heard them not address yet is the changing of the passwords.
- dismalaf 1y ago
  Arko kind of did address it in his most recent blog post. He claims he was doing what was in Ruby Central's best interest. Unfortunately for him he basically admitted to a crime because it came after he was terminated. He tried appealing to community and whatnot but anyone who's ever worked for a corporation knows that once you're terminated, it doesn't matter if HR forgot to take away your credentials or not, you simply don't attempt to access anything ever again. Having keys to something doesn't make you the owner.
  - jcmfernandes 1y ago
    He stated that he didn't know he had been terminated. RC admitted that no harm had been done. Yes, he should have communicated changing the password.
    - tptacek 1y ago
      He changed the AWS root password for the account.
      - jcmfernandes 1y ago
        Yes, and he already explained why he did it. Yes, he should have communicated it clearly. That's on him. At the same time, why didn't RC call him to ask? Was it easier to write about a security INCIDENT throwing shade at Arko? With that said, let's keep focused on the real issue: RC did a hostile takeover of the projects. That's not been properly disputed so far. Matz is, therefore, accepting to steward stolen projects.
        tptacek 1y ago
        It was a security incident!
        dismalaf 1y ago
        It doesn't matter why you break into your former employer's server. That's the point. > Matz is, therefore, accepting to steward stolen projects. You know Arko didn't even start working on Rubygems until it was nearly 10 years old, right? One of the original authors is in here and on X saying he supports it being taken over by RubyCore. Which matters much more than whatever the maintainers who were locked out think.
        jcmfernandes 1y ago
        > It doesn't matter why you break into your former employer's server. Arko already stated that he didn't know he had been fired. Geez. > You know Arko didn't even start working on Rubygems until it was nearly 10 years old, right? The project was stolen from a set of maintainers, not just Arko. Let's stick to the facts: someone with admin rights over the repos revoked the access of other admins without their consent. What do you call this? > One of the original authors is in here and on X saying he supports it being taken over by RubyCore. Which matters much more than whatever the maintainers who were locked out think. How in the world is that relevant? I have a lot of respect for Rich, but he wasn't a maintainer.
soraminazuki 1y ago
That's the narrative from the new Ruby Central, which feels like a wild distortion of the actual situation. You’re likely aware, though it’s worth mentioning, that the new owners ousted all existing maintainers without any explanation[1]. This follows a prior incident where access was revoked and later restored, with assurances that it was a mistake. This situation can only be viewed as a malicious attack, in which only the new owners had a full understanding of what transpired. Changing the password was a reasonable and appropriate response that any competent person in a similar position would've considered. I’m shocked that we seem to be experiencing a Freenode 2.0 situation, but with some supporting the usurpers instead of the longstanding maintainers. It’s only been four years since the Freenode debacle, yet certain types of people seem to have grown bolder since then. A "win" for freedom of expression, huh? [1]: https://pup-e.com/goodbye-rubygems.pdf https://pup-e.com/goodbye-rubygems.pdf
- tptacek 1y ago
  Did he or did he not log in to the AWS root account after losing his own credentials and change the root password? I don't need paragraphs of explication following that. Seems simple!
  - soraminazuki 1y ago
    You take issue with me using 148 words in my comment? Just 8 hours before you wrote that, you spent more words than I did downplaying problems with AI powered mass surveillance cameras. Are rules something you live by or something that you arbitrarily impose on others? It’s telling that you can write multiple paragraphs claiming the moon is made of cheese while expecting others to communicate only in brief, misleading soundbites.
    - yawaramin 1y ago
      It's a yes or no question.
      - soraminazuki 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]