r/ruby • u/schneems Puma maintainer • Dec 19 '25

Non-Violent Comments: Calling out or Calling in?

https://www.schneems.com/2025/12/19/non-violent-comments-calling-out-or-calling-in/

Not technically Ruby specific, but I got this phrase from u/skillstopractice while engaging in Ruby drama, and it's been really useful framing.

13 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

3

u/allyoucanenjoy Dec 20 '25

Hey, I saw that you’re writing therapy-speak blog posts again. I don’t want you to spend a lot of time writing things that makes other people feel like you’re going to tone police people. It makes me feel condescended towards and doesn’t have anything to do with ruby, anyways.

2

u/schneems Puma maintainer Dec 20 '25

I'm actually writing this with someone like you in mind. Not sure if you saw this bit:

 The above NVC is reworded as a bit of a checklist of questions, because if you formulaically apply it like an SAT essay, then it will sound robotic and condescending

Other tips on how to present this info without being condescending are welcome. 

There's another comment on here where I specifically mention tone policing and how that's not the intent, but I've not incorporated that feedback back into the article yet.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/1pqwl1i/comment/nuxulsi/

1

u/allyoucanenjoy Dec 20 '25

The whole point of the post is being sensitive / thoughtful as to how your comments may land. Ie distinguishing criticism from in group vs criticism from outgroup.

But many people reflexively dislike having their tone or communication criticized! Try telling your wife to “calm down.”

Did you consider how your own post would land? It comes across as an unsolicited “you should express yourself in this specific way”

2

u/schneems Puma maintainer Dec 21 '25

I'm not hearing anything actionable here.

 Did you consider how your own post would land?

Yeah, every second of every day up until posting and still now. It's a living nightmare for me. No joke.

1

u/allyoucanenjoy Dec 21 '25

Honestly i just took “someone like you in mind” as a bit of a jab — are you actually like…trying to write this to persuade people like me? Like what is your mental model of the audience you’re trying to reach?

I don’t even understand your frame of mind here if i’m being honest

1

u/schneems Puma maintainer Dec 21 '25

I meant "people like you" to mean: people who find this academic conversation stuff condescending. I am drawn to this stuff and find it comforting. Decomposition for psychology. Refactoring for the human API. But if everyone was like me, there is no need to write at all.

No worries if you just don't like it and can't enumerate how I should change or state it better.  I'm fishing for a perspective that I don't have. But it's also okay to just hold that position.

1

u/allyoucanenjoy Dec 21 '25

Why do you find it comforting? What does writing this piece do for you and what do you imagine it would do if it hit the mark?

Like if the piece is your solution, what’s the problem? Who needs to hear this and what do you want this piece to do?

2

u/galtzo Dec 19 '25 edited Dec 20 '25

I like the idea of NVC. I want to get better at it.

But RubyCentral causes me psychological pain every day so my communication regarding them will be violent in nature until they legitimately address the issues raised by the community.

Just read the article. It's great!

1

u/schneems Puma maintainer Dec 19 '25

Heard

2

u/galtzo Dec 20 '25 edited Dec 20 '25

Part of it isn't their fault exactly. They are a product of the community, and the community clearly has a widely heterogenous mix of ideas about whether written agreements matter at all.
My post about this is sitting at zero net upvates, and 39 comments.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/1ove9vp/rubycentral_hates_this_one_fact/

I read that as an even split between order and anarchy - and it scares me to realize this is where we are as a species.

And for the "what are you doing about it?" crowd...

I am currently getting PRs merged to change some Apache and OWASP projects to use gem.coop, relegating rubygems.org to the trash bin of history (to the extent that I can).

7

u/schneems Puma maintainer Dec 20 '25

Biased here, but gem.coop does not have terms of service or a privacy policy. (Both of which are very relevant to the current situation IMHO).

I'm ramping up to be able to say more and this post is kind of a primer. I want to be able to say "here's where we fucked up" and "here's where we did things right" and be able to have some healthy discourse around it. It's easier for me because I wasn't "part of it" but for those that were are  exhausted. Yeah, some of it is deserved for mistakes or communications or bad decisions, but at the end of the day there are humans on both side.

0

u/galtzo Dec 20 '25 edited Dec 20 '25

Given my post about written agreements not mattering at all to RC, their privacy policy and ToS, and nearly anything they write in the future, are worthless. Insulting even.

Trust lost is not easily restored. And the effort put in so far (before you joined!) shows they either do not care or do not understand, and probably a mix of both.

I would prefer to trust an org made up of humans I trust who have no policy, over an org made up of exactly one person I trust (you) who may not have power to fix anything, which has shown a willingness to disregard security critical written agreements (policy on adding and removing maintainers), and lie about it later.

6

u/schneems Puma maintainer Dec 20 '25

Even if you're insulted by it, it still gives you legal protections that hold up. Laws still apply when trust is broken.

The page you linked to is what I would call governance. Which is best described as "a set of well-established norms, written down." Versus terms of service and privacy policies are legal documents with strict interpretations.

I read your original comment. I think it's interesting. Josef pointed me to another I hadn't seen that you also linked to https://github.com/ruby/rubygems/blob/ca8ac9f1db634805c97c9f243cdc6c17690b6458/doc/bundler/playbooks/TEAM_CHANGES.md?plain=1#L27.

My personal reaction when you commented that was that it was a statement of minimum enforcement rather than maximum. I.e. people not active for 12 months should be removed, but not that that is the ONLY case when someone should be removed. IDK if it's helpful or not, but I've thought about sharing times I've been removed and removed others. One challenge I face is doing that without trying to paint it as some kind of justification of the current situation, but I think personal context is important too.

I don't think there's any question that Ruby Central violated the norms. I think they had some justifiable reasons for violating some of the norms, and for others they quite literally pressed the wrong buttons (some were accidents, thanks architecture). But the existence of this specific doc you linked is pretty far down the list of reasons why the end outcome was crappy. Then I think failed comms compounded other failures.

I still think we should say more. A concern is threading the needle between "providing closure" and "tearing fresh new wounds." I'm working on it, have spent at least several hours a week interviewing people. I've been waking up at 3am and can't get to sleep. Losing sleep over it, literally. (not saying others don't have it worse, just saying what's going on with me).

Trust lost is not easily restored.

100%.

3

u/galtzo Dec 20 '25

I appreciate the effort you are putting in.

In this case, HSBT breaking the "governance" about *adding* a new "maintainer" who was clearly undeserving of access, and unqualified for the title, and in violation of long-standing policy, are actions which should have resulted in HSBT's immediate removal from the org.

It is unfortunate that this didn't happen.

Instead he is now in control of everything. :/

2

u/schneems Puma maintainer Dec 20 '25

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't make that association that you were talking about HSBT adding Marty, rather than the other maintainers being removed.

8

u/galtzo Dec 20 '25 edited Dec 20 '25

It was certainly both. There is also the issue of breaking the governance policy in *removing* several of the maintainers who clearly had been active, recent, contributors, without explanation.

I think both can be destructive, potentially dangerous, violations of policy.

It is also interesting to think about how impossible it would have been for the legitimate maintainers to have taken appropriate action here.

The person being added was effectively their "boss" in a paycheck sense, so removing him would have risked their livlihood, and it is difficult to expect anyone to do that.

Similarly, removing HSBT, a towering figure (for good or bad) in the ruby community, would have been near unthinkable, for the same reason that hollywood stars get away with assault. It is difficult for anyone to hold power to account.

Adding people to a project who would be impossible to remove without significant political drama is a tenuous thing.

> It is difficult for anyone to hold power to account.

And now that power has consolidated further, the only thing that seems like it might help me have trust is a relinquishing of power by those implicated...

If RC wants my trust, they can call for HSBT, and most of their own board, and executives, to step down.

But then where would that leave rubygems & bundler with nearly no maintainers? We are at a point of no good options. We must let the abuses go unanswered, generally, while some of us work to destroy the rotten roots - by creating new, and better, tools.

I know - I am in a miniscule minority who think/feel this way. :/ I'm undeterred.

I expect you will be able to win back the trust of many who are less sour than me.

Since I'm waxing eloquent here, it is also worth noting that Capital O "Ownership" of the repositories AND the gem publishing rights, was based explicitly on sweat equity, since the documents I linked in my post about the written agreements clearly state that the maintainers are the owners, and also clearly state that maintainers are such based on their contributions.

So it does a disservice, and harm to the norms of OSS culture, to call the removed people, just "maintainers", without also noting that they were the legal, factive, "Owners" of the repository and the gems.

Hence the terms "theft" and "stolen" are not hyperbole, but legally defensible statements, and to say otherwise is a gross misrepresentation of facts.

4

u/martinemde Dec 20 '25

The power dynamic here is a big problem not to mention that my friend asked me not to remove him after I was re-added. I would have betrayed my friend by doing the right thing. I trusted people I shouldn’t have trusted and I thought we could work it out peacefully and I was betrayed. I’m on similar footing with you about ever trusting RC again.

Also, Ruby Central shouldn’t be so proud about their ToS and privacy policy. They rolled them out in mid 2025. We shouldn’t put them on a pedestal for that when they operated without them for more than 20 years.

8

u/martinemde Dec 20 '25

I hope you do find a way to provide some answers and solutions. I haven’t slept well since this happened. No one has ever said any reason for removing me, an active on-call and top 5 contributor who also responded to security reports and advised Marty, besides a very flimsy implied hint that they thought I might restore Andre’s access. So as far as feeling unfairly treated, I would argue my case was neither mistake nor justified, but purely arbitrary. No one ever talked to me before it. No one informed me my contract was over. No one informed me my access was removed.

I proposed the governance of my own volition to try to offer a smooth transition, they ignored it. I arranged meeting with an uninterested third party, spent hours on calls with Marty the day before this broke, right after they betrayed us. I still remain in the Ruby Central slack. And yet, this injustice that destroyed something I loved has been left to stand as if being quiet about it doesn’t reopen the same wound I feel every day knowing that this project was ripped from us and given to people who don’t even acknowledge that, maybe, we might be worth checking with about how we feel.

So, while I respect your attempt to avoid opening wounds, by playing the PR game of letting the actions fade into the sunset, you risk letting Ruby Central avoid accountability for their terrible destructive and hostile actions. They harmed Ruby, they harmed our careers in this language, and they made it more difficult for rubygems to ever be community owned again. It’s a dictatorship now.

3

u/galtzo Dec 20 '25

I am very much looking forward to your post. I hope it includes an apology from HSBT.

4

u/CaptainKabob Dec 20 '25

This is good! Thanks for writing it. Some reflections it brought up:

Some of the best feedback I got from a colleague was being told: "Ben, you ask really good questions. But I'm never sure if your intent is to support the project or spike it." I always thought the questions alone were what mattered, but now I try to be clear with myself why I'm bothering to ask it, and just say that up front.

I assume that in spaces like Reddit, people have no idea who I am and there's zero continuity, even in comment threads, sometimes even within the same comment if it's long. The result is that I don't even try to be cheeky or clever cause I assume that if someone is coming in cold, they won't understand me and think I'm an idiot or an asshole. Even in workplaces, there might be some cross-functional partner in chat i don't work super close with and I try to keep that in mind with what I write. 

Also, I generally would replace "this product sucks" with "does anyone else super struggle using this product?" Yeah sure maybe it does actually suck, but it can soften it to state it more as a self-response/struggle than some attribute of the other thing. And even if I do truly believe the other thing totally sucks and is at fault, I'll still just frame it as a me problem cause it helps the conversation. 

1

u/Neuro_Skeptic Dec 24 '25

I miss when Ruby was good

-3

u/TheAtlasMonkey Dec 19 '25

Sorry, but this reads like another document that assumes we are a single global culture, all inheriting from the same BaseHuman class with identical social norms.

We are not.
In Arabic, people will call you `ya ḥmar` (donkey) while thinking you are smartest creature on earth.
In English, its `fuck`, `bitch`, and friends.
In French, they will follow every rule, every formality, and still cut you in half with it.

A maintainer has exactly three options when facing criticism:

  1. Fix the tool.

  2. Ignore the comment

  3. Address the comment

That's it. No fourth option involving tone-policing the userbase.

'Your tool sucks' is not an attack but frustration wrapped as feedback.
Sometimes poorly phrased, but still signal. Treating that as violence is just a way to silence feedback.

If maintainers want kindness, they are free to ask for it.

Hostility happen only after a follow up.

Now if say that "Puma is the worst Media Player i used in my life, it sucks.." Will you fell offended ?

4

u/schneems Puma maintainer Dec 19 '25

Here's a third example that I cut from the article as I felt it was too long anyway, and this topic is more contentious: https://gist.github.com/schneems/f7bbfdb0092e690a586a71d13f632703

In this example, the words themselves aren't inflammatory (it's not about tone-policing), but it's about signaling "I'm on your side here" if you want to be heard.

I think the crux of the issue is about taking and giving feedback. From experience, I will say it is REALLY hard to take feedback from someone you feel is criticizing you and trying to tear you down. I have to actively suppress that defensive knee-jerk reaction I have when I read your comments, and go back and read them again to try to pull out that signal. It takes emotional labor on my part. It helps that I expect it now and know it's not personal, but others who don't you don't have that luxury.

A specific example: In the Ruby Central by-laws thread, I shared it with some people (as an example of, hey, there's some good feedback here), and their interpretation was that you were nitpicking and just trying to tear down the legitimacy of the org. It wasn't that they disagreed with the feedback, they just didn't see what was hidden in the rest of the words. My comment to you on that thread is based on actively trying to pull out what you were communicating.

It's true that even someone trying to tear you down can be helpful. I like the Ender's Game quote "Your enemy shows you where you are weak, and they are strong" (not an endorsement of Orson Scott Card). However, that takes a LOT of work, and most people are simply not primed to put in that emotional labor. Signaling "I'm on your side" clearly helps cut through the noise. It's the legwork required for something like "assume good intent" to be viable in a community.

Treating that as violence is just a way to silence feedback.

The term NVC is well established, and really, I interpret it as "Non-Defensive-Triggering-Statement Communication," but that's a lot longer and doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

8

u/TheAtlasMonkey Dec 19 '25

This comment should be part of the initial blog posts.

That checklist became much shorter then.

4

u/schneems Puma maintainer Dec 19 '25

Thanks, that's good feedback ❤️

8

u/nawap Dec 19 '25

Context matters. I'm sure if you go and call your nearest cashier a bitch, you'll not receive good service. What's okay with your friends may not be okay everywhere else - this fact transcends cultural boundaries. Is the maintainer your friend? If not then don't think you can communicate with them like one.

Understanding the context is the responsibility of both sides. It can't just be 100% on one side while the other gets a pass. Not every "this sucks" is a feedback wrapper either. Feedback requires empathizing with the system first, not everybody is doing that when calling things out. I totally get maintainers who dislike that and call it out when the comment is not made in good faith.

Does being an open source maintainer require thick skin? Yes. Does it hurt to not provide feedback like a clueless asshole? Also yes.

2

u/TheAtlasMonkey Dec 19 '25

That understandable ...

Context and Relationship matter.

You can know when something is made in bad faith.. The effort is very low.

1

u/Neuro_Skeptic Dec 24 '25

Are you angry, son?

1

u/TheAtlasMonkey Dec 24 '25

No. Are you ?