3 ms·

No, it won't because I can read the timelines and see what he's omitting. He logged in and changed the password after the board emailed him and told him his se

No, it won't because I can read the timelines and see what he's omitting. He logged in and changed the password after the board emailed him and told him his services were terminated. That includes/specifically mentions his on-call services. His response claims only silence from the board and that he was just performing his on-call duties. I've been a corporate stooge for 25 years or so now. On call duties are one of my main responsibilities. I would NEVER probe out which logins I still have access to after receiving notice of termination. He admits to doing this in multiple places. All his justifications are that he was under contract to do work that he was already notified was terminated. Everything that follows either tells me that he has bad judgment, that he's lying (by omissions), or in the worst case totally delusional. If he was so worried about operational takeover, why did he _change a password_ without notifying anyone else with operational capabilities that he was doing so? Nobody reasonable would _ever_ do that. There's a certain amount of upfront communication and CYA required of reasonable actors in this space and he doesn't have it (Not that Ruby Central did any better). So no, I won't be changing my mind, and I don't know why you put "(again)" in there.

florkbork 1y ago
Notice how this was taking over a GitHub repository from an entire team of maintainers, through deceit; and now we are all a few weeks in and you have seemingly accepted the narrative that this is now one bad apple justifies every action taken before and since, with no questions answered, with a wave of inconsistencies (it's about the money/no, the treasurer is wrong it's not about the money!), etc.
- busterarm 1y ago
  No, it's not. I haven't weighed in on that at all in this thread. This thread is very specifically about Andre Arko's credibility and the credibility of projects that associate with him. Regardless of what Ruby Central did, his own actions warrant every bit of criticism he's getting. Stop trying to redirect the narrative. There are other threads where that discussion is happening. You can view Ruby Central as being in the wrong all you want and I won't argue with you, but that doesn't mean Arko is not-wrong as well. It's not zero-sum.
  - jcmfernandes 1y ago
    Arko explained why he changed the password; I agree that he should have communicated the change. Now, does that justify the hostile takeover of the projects? C'mon... folks, there was a hostile takeover of two projects. Will we, as a community, ignore that? I don't understand how Matz accepted this as-is. Taking over these projects without addressing the takeover makes them toxic assets that will taint the Ruby community for a long, long time.
    - busterarm 1y ago
      Look. I brought up Arko's credibility. I didn't bring up the Ruby Central folks credibility. That's a separate thread -- there's literally like 500 other threads to discuss that topic. What you're doing is called a Whataboutism. I was responding to a comment about gem.coop. Andre Arko is not credible and thus gem.coop is not credible. He can explain all he wants but his actions were plainly inexcusable. Whatever Ruby Central did is immaterial to the point of whether or not Andre Arko can be involved with services that we rely on.

florkbork 1y ago

Notice how this was taking over a GitHub repository from an entire team of maintainers, through deceit; and now we are all a few weeks in and you have seemingly accepted the narrative that this is now one bad apple justifies every action taken before and since, with no questions answered, with a wave of inconsistencies (it's about the money/no, the treasurer is wrong it's not about the money!), etc.

busterarm 1y ago
No, it's not. I haven't weighed in on that at all in this thread. This thread is very specifically about Andre Arko's credibility and the credibility of projects that associate with him. Regardless of what Ruby Central did, his own actions warrant every bit of criticism he's getting. Stop trying to redirect the narrative. There are other threads where that discussion is happening. You can view Ruby Central as being in the wrong all you want and I won't argue with you, but that doesn't mean Arko is not-wrong as well. It's not zero-sum.
- jcmfernandes 1y ago
  Arko explained why he changed the password; I agree that he should have communicated the change. Now, does that justify the hostile takeover of the projects? C'mon... folks, there was a hostile takeover of two projects. Will we, as a community, ignore that? I don't understand how Matz accepted this as-is. Taking over these projects without addressing the takeover makes them toxic assets that will taint the Ruby community for a long, long time.
  - busterarm 1y ago
    Look. I brought up Arko's credibility. I didn't bring up the Ruby Central folks credibility. That's a separate thread -- there's literally like 500 other threads to discuss that topic. What you're doing is called a Whataboutism. I was responding to a comment about gem.coop. Andre Arko is not credible and thus gem.coop is not credible. He can explain all he wants but his actions were plainly inexcusable. Whatever Ruby Central did is immaterial to the point of whether or not Andre Arko can be involved with services that we rely on.