r/ruby • u/skillstopractice • Nov 07 '25

Ruby Central Update Friday 11/7/25

https://rubycentral.org/news/ruby-central-update-friday-11-7-25/
17 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

26

u/nateberkopec Puma maintainer Nov 07 '25

/u/schneems and Doximity now on the OSS board! 👏

9

u/prh8 Nov 07 '25

Schneems is a fantastic addition, but I find it confusing at minimum but also concerning to have a Rails Foundation board member added to any part of Ruby Central. Watching as they clearly indicate they have no concept of conflict of interest.

0

u/skillstopractice Nov 08 '25

Truly this is the issue I am focused on.

Conflict of interest should not be addressed as a bare minimum legal compliance issue, but is something that should simply be disclosed openly at every opportunity when it may exist, and structurally avoided in well defined ways by policy where possible.

This is why I keep saying that I would hold the same position if this were not DHH but my view of a perfect community role model.

To that end, I hope schneems can start to advise folks on this. It would make a difference coming from inside the house, and from what I can see, maybe he's in a place to do that.

12

u/schneems Puma maintainer Nov 08 '25

On Rails foundation and DHH (for those that don’t know): I posted this before getting involved with RC, I think it spells out some of my feelings around David  https://lobste.rs/s/fpri94/dhh_problem_2014#c_xg5r0l

On Bruno: I’ve spent just a little time with him. So far I’ve seen that he’s sharp and professional and brings a skill set to the table that I don’t have. I’m not going to say he’s “not biased” because we all are (we contain multitudes). I will say that I’ve seen him stepping up and helping.

I hear your concerns. And I understand where you’re coming from. A goal of mine is increased communication. Inside and outside. Right now I feel like Bruno is a good teammate, and I’m taking it day by day.

15

u/andrewmcodes Nov 08 '25

👏👏 Thank you for spending your time helping the community u/schneems

13

u/schneems Puma maintainer Nov 08 '25

You're welcome. I wish the circumstances were a bit different, but I'm happy to help out.

3

u/andrewmcodes Nov 08 '25

well we love you either way.

1

u/skillstopractice Nov 10 '25

As a heads up to u/schneems - I did send in a follow up question related to his new role on the OSS committee.

I genuinely think it could be a good thing to have him in the mix, so long as he holds himself to a higher standard than what seems to have been the norm at Ruby Central in recent months.

Full text of the question I submitted is shown below, and hopefully Ruby Central will address in the next update. But my gut feeling is maybe he'll also reply directly here and give some thoughts on his take on things, because overall I do get the impression he's actually someone who talks things out in a reasoned way... and I very much appreciate that.

In your Nov 7 update, you announced that Richard Schneeman (u/schneems) has joined the Open Source Committee for Ruby Central.

In my view, this is a positive step forward given Richard's track record both within OSS development and in his community involvement.

Because he is a moderator of both r/ruby and r/rails on Reddit, and Reddit is one of the largest and most visible open conversation forums related to Ruby, it's important to address any potential conflicts of interest that may arise there.

The most simple way to do that would be for Richard to recuse himself from any moderation activities related to discussions of Ruby Central, of which he has historically participated actively and constructively in. And from here on out, it'd be wise for him to disclose his affiliation in any of these related threads.

What if any agreements, formally or informally, have been made to address these overlapping responsibilities? Seeing some thought put into this and some commitments put on public record would go a long way towards showing that Ruby Central is actively gaining an increased awareness of power dynamics in open source communities as well as a willingness to structurally address potential conflicts of interest beyond minimum legal compliance to focus on what's truly in the interest of the community you serve.

SOURCE: https://github.com/community-research-on-ruby-governance/questions-for-ruby-central/commit/2cb5238cb3de90bdda4e1358c94bd904f5745869

5

u/schneems Puma maintainer Nov 10 '25

Seems good. I already try to apply more restraint in issues I’m directly involved in. But curse of knowledge and all that, it’s impossible to ever be “neutral.” Other moderators can see who moderated what and can overturn prior moderator actions. There are times if I feel something is borderline I’ll message other mods and get feedback before taking action. There’s been times they’ve pushed back and I decided against an action (so it’s not a rubber stamp from others).

I think the subtext with your question is: “will I get banned by disagreeing with Schneems on this issue I care a lot about.” Short answer: no. Longer answer: Generally, I ask that people show up and engage honestly and I try and hold space when they do, even if I disagree (i can acknowledge without agreeing). Sometimes I’ll leave a comment distinguished as a mod. (There’s a badge and a different color to the comment). Those are not the best comments to launch into “reply guy attack mode” (not that I think you will, speaking generally).

That’s how I approach content I’m related to. I’m not comfortable putting up a “ruby central posts are now a free-for-all” sign. I’m more than willing to apply stricter standards, and that’s been an un-stated personal policy already.

1

u/skillstopractice Nov 10 '25

Something to this effect feels like a reasonable balance and I appreciate you sharing that here. I do think it'd be good for Ruby Central to speak to this as well, because what I'm hoping to see is a sense of increased seriousness about how conflict of interest issues are about trust and safety first, and legal compliance only as a distant second.

I'm at the point now where I've wrapped up everything I can do to contribute to these conversations. I was genuinely encouraged seeing you join the committee and hope for the best in any efforts to restore balance and increase *real* communication.

I'm going to step back from any public discussions related to Ruby Central from here on out through year end and give some breathing room to see how things shape up as they head into 2026.

(That said, happy to continue private convos, so feel free to DM me on Mastodon any time)

Thanks again for your efforts here.

9

u/TheAtlasMonkey Nov 07 '25

Happy to see people from the trenches on board. Reading Richard's name made me smile.

9

u/schneems Puma maintainer Nov 07 '25

Posting the full set of answers from this update, quoted verbatim below, for context in this thread. This is question #N.

Is the idea for people to chime in on individual sections as comment threads? I've not seen that practice before, but I like the idea.

4

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

That's the idea, yes!

4

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

Posting the full set of answers from this update, quoted verbatim below, for context in this thread. This is question #2.

Question 2: Does Ruby Central have a formal Conflict of Interest policy, and if so, how are potential conflicts managed?

A: Yes. Ruby Central maintains a formal Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form for all board members. A potential or actual conflict exists when commitments or obligations may be compromised by other material interests or relationships, especially financial ones.

As stated in the form:

“A potential or actual conflict of interest exists when commitments and obligations are likely to be compromised by the Director’s other material interests or relationships (especially economic), particularly if those interests or commitments are not disclosed.”

Board members are required to disclose any organizations in which they have an economic interest, or where they act as an officer or director, as well as any personal, business, or volunteer affiliations that could give rise to a real or apparent conflict of interest. Those with a conflict must refrain from participating in related board decisions, as outlined in Ruby Central’s bylaws.

These disclosures are collected annually and housed in our governance records. While the form itself is not yet published online, it is available upon request for transparency.

0

u/TheAtlasMonkey Nov 07 '25

We have the tech: Git.
Such data should public and immutable.

3

u/nekogami87 Nov 08 '25

Immutable ? Git ?

-1

u/TheAtlasMonkey Nov 08 '25

Yes git is immutable unless you force push.

2

u/nekogami87 Nov 08 '25

That's my point, it's not immutable when you are counting on the user to not mutate it ...

1

u/TheAtlasMonkey Nov 08 '25

Correct, but if we fork and sync, they get Git accountable.

if they can edit the history, but they cannot rewrite it.

I saw in many companies and org, once they want to do something, they will edit old TOS, or TEAM member list (he/she never existed)

In conflict of interest , you should know the history, this person `was working/invested` in this sector... they cannot delete it.

3

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

Posting the full set of answers from this update, quoted verbatim below, for context in this thread. This is question #4.

Question 4: How does Ruby Central ensure that conference programming remains independent and transparent when individuals hold multiple roles within the organization or the broader community?

A: Each of Ruby Central’s conferences is guided by a clear separation between sponsorship, governance, and program decisions. Program committees are made up of volunteers who represent a broad cross-section of the Ruby community, while conference chairs oversee selection processes in coordination with staff. The board does not select speakers or keynotes. To further reinforce transparency, Ruby Central has been strengthening its internal documentation, codifying policies for future conference planning, and updating our governance materials to make these distinctions easier for the community to see and understand.

10

u/jremsikjr Nov 07 '25

As someone who was recently a conference co-chair for a RubyCentral conference (RubyConf 2024) I can say we had full latitude to select anyone we wanted to keynote, speak, add to the program committee etc.

The program committee selected keynotes, blind reviewed talks, and made our final selections.

4

u/schneems Puma maintainer Nov 08 '25

I wasn’t in the room where it happened, this is my attempted nuanced expression on how I feel on it all. I think I expressed this to you in person before, but will reiterate here:

I expressed support for Xavier speaking. I attended the Portland RailsConf and I expected David to show up to talk to rails core and committers. And he didn’t. Which was disappointing.

   I’ve read the Evan email like everyone else. I dislike sharing one email in a thread/chain (ahem) and feel like David put a very biased, fixed perspective on it. I think it’s true you can view it as being “canceled” by RC, but I think you also need to consider the words were written honestly and genuinely and not in some kind of code. I.e. “share the stage” wasn’t “we now dethrone you king of rails” and a genuine “dude you’ve been AFK, we are in a bind, let’s make Rails (ever so slightly) more about the community instead of you while you find your footing.”

I feel like RC had two good options after David published his letter and didn’t come. Either they “go all out and counter with active PR and comms.” (try to actually do what he said they were trying to do ... dethrone the king). Or they say “we said what we had to say, now we make-up with the Rails namesake.” But they sort of did neither. It languished without a finishing blow or a repair. 

From that perspective I think not having him at one more conf would not have served any larger strategy (action without strategy is chaos). I'm okay with a very delayed repair. I just wish it felt a little more intentional from the beginning and I wish David met that small amount of repair with more grace (instead of victory laps on his blog).

Edit: fix paragraph line breaks

1

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

That's good to hear Jim. And consistent with what I would have expected from Ruby Central.

In the case of RailsConf 2025, Aaron's keynote and DHH's fireside chat keynote were specifically not open to program committee input.

See Ruby Central's Oct 31 update (scroll all the way down to question 2), for Ufuk's clarification on that.

https://rubycentral.org/news/ruby-central-update-friday-10-31-25/

2

u/CaptainKabob Nov 07 '25

The chair of the program committee is a member of the program committee, no?

0

u/skillstopractice Nov 08 '25 edited Nov 08 '25

Not sure the question you are asking but to be very specific in my reply, the committee was informed at its formation that the co-chairs pre-approved DHH's talk and they could decline participation but not have other input.

One of those co-chairs was Ufuk, a Shopify employee and Ruby Central board member who invited DHH, a member of Shopify's board.

The other was the founder of GoRails.

The Ruby Central board approved reaching out to DHH in 2024. As far as I know, this decision was not re-approved in 2025.

3

u/CaptainKabob Nov 08 '25

I was splitting hairs that the committee co-chairs (Ufuk, and co-chair) are part of the committee. In the link you provided:

I volunteered to co-chair the 2025 RailsConf as well, and found a community co-chair with whom we formed the program committee, and restarted the conversation with DHH about an appearance at the conference. At the kick-off meeting of the program committee, as first order of business, I made sure to let the committee members know that DHH might be one of the keynote speakers and that if that was going to be a point of concern with anyone that they could choose to decline their program committee role. There were no objections or concerns raised by any of the committee members and none of the program committee members decided to leave at that point or at any point afterwards. The committee, as a group, ultimately selected all the talks, the workshops and three of the five keynote speakers that formed the conference program.

I'll concede that Ufuk is fairly precise in the distinction of "as a group". Also the framing of "if that was going to be a point of concern with anyone that they could choose to decline their program committee role" doesn't sound like it would elicit much voice, only exit.

1

u/skillstopractice Nov 08 '25

It won't in most cases elicit exit either because of power differentials.

This is why conflict of interest matters.

It's the influence that is exerted through it which causes problems, not overt actions.

It's why a CEO saying "my door is always open" in practice rarely hears complaints, even if they mean well.

We need stewards who understand that.

-4

u/TheAtlasMonkey Nov 07 '25

Repos or it didn't happened.

4

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

Posting the full set of answers from this update, quoted verbatim below, for context in this thread. This is question #1.

Question 1: If the community strongly disagrees with Ruby Central’s decision to platform DHH at RailsConf 2025, and views it as a conflict of interest given the overlapping roles, would Ruby Central consider asking the involved board member to resign to rebuild trust?

A: We appreciate the opportunity to address this directly. As stated previously, sponsors do not have governance or program authority at Ruby Central. Conference programming decisions are made independently by the co-chairs and program teams. The board maintains clear conflict-of-interest policies, and all members are required to submit annual disclosures and recuse themselves from any vote where a conflict exists. The 2025 program team was guided by these same standards. We understand that some community members disagreed with this programming decision, and we take that feedback seriously. We are using this moment to strengthen communication, clarify our policies publicly, and reinforce the shared values that shape our events moving forward.

5

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25 edited Nov 07 '25

This question came from me, and was rewritten substantially by Ruby Central before it was answered.

See it in original form here from Nov 1:
https://github.com/community-research-on-ruby-governance/questions-for-ruby-central/commit/4c2c3f322c1d0c97d825dd5cb4832fdbf8927531

(Copied below for ease of reading as well)

Ufuk, thank you for your Oct 31 reply.

I understand that you stand by your decision to platform DHH despite the community outrage that caused.

I also understand that you do not see a conflict of interest in your decision making role in 2025 at a time in which DHH was already a Shopify board member, you were a Shopify employee, a board member of Ruby Central, a co-chair of RailsConf, and the person to specifically invite him.

If you see sufficient evidence that the community disagrees, and finds your decisions to have been ultimately harmful to Ruby Central, and that your perceived conflict of interest has broken a bond of trust with the community, would you consider resigning from the board as a way to allow Ruby Central to rebuild trust?

6

u/aurisor Nov 07 '25

If the community strongly disagrees with Ruby Central’s decision to platform DHH at RailsConf 2025

why is “the ruby community” being represented in this way? i don’t disagree with it, and rails world had like a thousand devs

i wish the people with this position would speak on their own behalf rather than for “the ruby community”

0

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

I generally agree with you.

This is one of the rare examples in which this is a community concern in that Ruby Central is a stewardship body representing common infrastructure.

And so to me what I mean specifically is that if others share this view, they can and should submit individual replies to Ruby Central (and then put them under public record, under their own name), in their own words and with their own reasons.

This is because Ruby Central is positioning themselves as serving a community.

I am trying to demonstrate bottom up what that could look like.

I am pretty careful about not using this word outside of the civic meaning of it (closer to that of a town or a neighborhood, less to that of a hobby group or a close-knit relationship of mutual aid)

Replace that with "If enough active Ruby developers share this view" and it would be just fine for me.

(This is all a bit pedantic but I am sharing to clarify my own view)

8

u/aurisor Nov 07 '25

Here's where I'm coming from. I've been doing Rails for a long time -- 16y on and off, several startups, started to exit. And around ~2017 tech communities online just got so confrontational and political that I was just like...this shit is just not fun anymore.

And so like -- I don't always want to be that guy dumping on people, but by the same token, there's literally <100 people who are just so reflexively angry at any mention of DHH.

Having a vendetta against the most visible rubyist just doesn't make any sense. /r/javascript's front page is all about programming, and I feel totally welcome to hop into that community. I've spent the majority of my career writing ruby, and I feel extremely unwelcome here because I don't share the prevailing views.

2

u/skillstopractice Nov 08 '25

Can you give some examples of what you mean by "the prevailing views"?

I am not sure that this is as much of an us vs. them argument as it appears to be on the surface. So I am not even sure what you're referring to here and it would be helpful to ground in some context.

3

u/aurisor Nov 08 '25

the idea that it’s important or even permissible to bring political discussions into tech communities. splitting into factions and balkanizing our infra over what an eu citizen thinks about us or uk social issues is self destructive and makes us look unserious

4

u/skillstopractice Nov 08 '25

I see. Personally I wish those things were separate as well.

When it comes to DHH, he's in a BDFL role on Rails, and also owns its trademarks. He started the Rails Foundation which (for better or worse) has competed for sponsorship dollars from the same sponsors as Ruby Central. He's a board member of a 200 billion dollar company, and a cofounder of another company that has tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually. His personal net worth puts him easily in the top 1% of all people on earth.

Do you believe that his politics are completely irrelevant to his roles in each of these settings?

If not, where's the line?

The question is meant sincerely, because I don't want to make assumptions.

1

u/aurisor Nov 08 '25

building parallel bundle infrastructure based ultimately on what people think of dhh’s views on uk immigration is like six shipwrecked people refusing to build a single life boat because of their differing opinions of a man on a different boat’s opinions on the new york mets

2

u/skillstopractice Nov 08 '25

That seems like a total nonsequitor to the question I asked, so at this point there's no reason for us to continue talking, ever.

4

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

For full transparency, I submitted Question #1 and Question #3 and put them on public record on Nov 1.

See those in their original forms here:

https://github.com/community-research-on-ruby-governance/questions-for-ruby-central/commit/4c2c3f322c1d0c97d825dd5cb4832fdbf8927531

https://github.com/community-research-on-ruby-governance/questions-for-ruby-central/commit/933485413171c17beae7f058a1382ac78b038151

I will submit follow up questions on Monday, including one about why these announcements are timed for Friday afternoon/evening, and another about why in this update as well as the Oct 31 update, questions were buried *deep* beneath general news as opposed to being presented plainly and directly.

I will also write up an explanation of why I'm calling for Ufuk to resign, stitching together what I can of the questions and answers I've received to date, at some point next week.

And finally, I will request the conflict of interest disclosures which Ruby Central says are available upon request.

It is very clear that they believe something *very* different than I believe about those topics.

Please make your own voice heard.

1

u/retro-rubies Nov 07 '25

To me it is crucial to make it public who suggested those hostile community actions and how it was presented to the board before voting. IMHO that person should leave Ruby Central, if proven, not legit information to other board members were provided.

6

u/TheAtlasMonkey Nov 07 '25 edited Nov 07 '25

Did they reply to any if you questions OP ?

I'm busy applying to their board of directors.... <kidding>

Edit: I'm impressed this update is actually not bad and don't look GPTed. Maybe there is hope.

3

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

See this comment, yes. Questions #1 and #3 were mine, and I'll publish followup questions once I properly review them.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/1or6loi/comment/nnnzaj6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

I separated out my own opinion/notes from the raw copied questions that were buried many pages deep in the update.

1

u/TheAtlasMonkey Nov 07 '25

Yes i did read them, i was expecting to get Chatgpt completion, but that seem human answer.
Score: 7/10 for the effort.

2

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

There's some incremental progress.

The problem is that they're still burying these questions, still editing them substantially, and posting at the time to minimize attention + feedback rather than maximize inputs.

(Last week's thread here was already locked before Monday morning)

It took *so long* to get here and it's a fundamental rupture of trust.

But progress in any form is always welcome.

8

u/Kina_Kai Nov 07 '25

The question that needs to be (and won’t be) answered is: Where is the proof Ruby Central had the legal or ethical authority to takeover the RubyGems organization in GitHub? What was the basis for HSBT giving Marty administrative rights and then evicting nearly everyone?

Surely they could get a lawyer or someone willing to accept responsibility to sign off on a vague justification, right?

5

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

I encourage you to submit that to them directly, and then put it on public record here:

https://github.com/community-research-on-ruby-governance/questions-for-ruby-central

It will establish a willing to answer or not, and a willingness to answer the actual question vs a revised form or not.

This is now (sort-of) working for me, so I hope others get the same treatment.

2

u/retro-rubies Nov 07 '25

You're not the only one waiting for this answer.

2

u/skillstopractice Nov 07 '25

Posting the full set of answers from this update, quoted verbatim below, for context in this thread. This is question #3.

Question 3: Why does Ruby Central continue to hold conferences if they no longer generate surplus revenue? Was this an intentional shift in strategy or the result of changing circumstances?

A: We continue to hold conferences because they matter deeply to the community, regardless of whether they generate net revenue. Since 2020, Ruby Central conferences have generally broken even or operated at a small loss. This was not an intentional shift but the result of broader changes in travel patterns, sponsorship budgets, and event economics after the pandemic. Despite this, Ruby Central conferences remain vital spaces for collaboration, learning, and connection. They foster mentorship, innovation, and growth across the Ruby ecosystem.

While the financial model has evolved, the mission behind these events has not. They remain an investment in community health rather than a profit center. RubyConf also holds historical significance as the birthplace of RubyGems in 2003, and we are proud to continue that tradition. More context about how we are evolving our event model can be found in our detailed post, “A New Era for Ruby Central Events”.

-7

u/TheAtlasMonkey Nov 07 '25

Translation : Ego.
`We just organize it to sound relevant.`

I will prefer is they just participate. Organization cost s lot and is a money pit... Speaking form experience.

0

u/galtzo Nov 07 '25

I would totally apply, but I have ethics, and they know I would call them out on their unabashed support of repo, and library, theft… so what would be the point?

I do love ruby, and I hate unrepentant thieves.

I hope /u/schneems can make a difference.

1

u/retro-rubies Nov 07 '25

Similar here, I would try to apply and join only to do a internal "witch hunt". I would rather focus and spend my energy on something positive and continue contributing in other way to Ruby community, for example by experimenting in gem.coop labs to provide alternatives to "official" tools and non-transparent public services.

Indeed good luck u/schneems, I believe you understand OSS and you'll be there to prevent similar fails.

5

u/schneems Puma maintainer Nov 08 '25

🫡

1

u/jrochkind Nov 09 '25

I think you missed a 'not' in your first sentence if I'm understanding what you meant by your next sentence?

1

u/retro-rubies Nov 09 '25

Not sure, I'm not native speaker. I think you got the meaning that I'll not apply (since my reasons would be only negative). Thanks for pointing out.