Sorry that people are making your feel that way. I appreciate you and your presence in the community.

And there was a time were we were not doing anything significant in the community. Companies didn’t invest back there either.

It is possible but I don’t think it is that. we often engage early with other companies in different avenues trying to encourage them and even give our time to ramp them up. I personally many times pledged my own time to help other companies to do a little bit more.

No. I think it is worse. I have seen people saying that behavior is acceptable, and proposing to a non-profit giving they data for personal financial gain is acceptable and justified in the name of monetizing volunteer work.

People just want to be right.

I really hope so.

Please share those proofs.

I forgot he was in the board so he might have access. Do you have proof I knew? Please give it to me

What? How was my tweet disingenuous? I had no idea Ufuk was an owner

Oh right, forgot about that. Thanks. Will direct my asks to him

Look at the history of Ruby Together. That org owned bundler and Rubygems (or at least Ruby together told us that) and got merged with Ruby central.

I’m saying that could be how ruby central saw the situation. I’m not trying to accuse anyone.

yeah. Good point. I agree with you that they could get ready for the "it went really badly" case, but they could have a conversation and discuss alternatives

Communicating early could trigger a retaliation, and that would also be a huge blow on the community trust of the service.

I understand the sentiment but I don't think is unanimous. I can understand both sides. If I had doubts where the trust lies in the current maintainers, if the organization removed one bad actor (or liability) it would be hard to know if the others aren't as well.

Bad behavior don't justify bad behavior, but the we are living in the "central organization control those OSS projects" world for at least a decade now.

I didn't see people going in defence of OSS when previous maintainers took over bundler from the previous team to put under Ruby together ownership. Neither when those maintainers rejects countless contributions based on "your company don't pay Ruby Together".

BTW, is isn't a takeover if RubyCentral was already the organization responsible for those projects. That was the case. Rubygems was created by RubyCentral founders, and even the maintainers that lost access said many times in order to contribute to those projects your company should pay rubycentral

I could imagine that if Matz didn't trust the ruby core anymore and he believed they were a threat to the supply gem he would remove commit access to all committers. It isn't pretty, agree, but it can be necessary.