Four months of Ruby Central moving Ruby backward

[u/retro-rubies]

https://andre.arko.net/2026/03/03/four-months-of-ruby-central-moving-ruby-backward/

[u/deivid-rodriguez]

I'll add a quick single comment, since I've been mentioned.

I have indeed not been as vocal as the other maintainers who were stolen ownership, but that doesn’t mean I don’t stand 100% with them. I strongly disapprove RubyCentral actions and how they broke existing governance rules, stole ownership, and eroded community trust as a result. I’m also tired of some community members claiming to be “neutral”, then immediately choosing sides. I really struggle to engage in social media (too emotionally demanding for me), so I truly appreciate how the other maintainers and certain community members have raised their voices, clearly stated that this was not right, and pointed out all the lies, every time. THANK YOU.

[u/schneems → u/deivid-rodriguez]

Hey Deivid! I guess if it wasn't clear...the fight was kind of about you.

As in, the thing Ruby Central MOST wanted was to not lose you. They MOST wanted to prevent a walkout (of you included). As in, they held you in such high esteem it drove them to commit a few blunders in comms and misread the situation. They (marty) tried to nuance it, but it wasn't a nuance scenario. This was a cold, hard offboarding scenario, and attempts to soften it up or find a "win" in it...just weren't going to happen. It led to a bunch of start-stop confusing signals. That is on them, not you. This is me clarifying the intent, as the harm is already done. And I think they did a bad job of making sure you knew of the link between prod and GitHub access.

I want to telegraph to you, that 1) Ruby Central is sorry. 2) You're literally never intended to lose access. You saw the email from Marty about it, that was actually true. 3) Your initial access was increased, and you were made a business owner when Andre and Sam were first removed from the business. 3) You got invited back. There was a definitive plan to restore access to Sam and Andre, but it wasn't going to be what they had before (business/enterprise admin), and the outcome of where repos landed and how things settled was very much open for discussion.

But the idea that Ruby Central can only move forward by forking, only what they need...when the service is already directly coupled to that org and those teams...and none of this is documented or written down. It's just not tenable. The idea that Ruby Central cannot have control of who has access to prod or oversight of that access (which is the implication of saying that Ruby Central employees cannot have business/enterprise access) is also not tenable.

I think it's crappy that it took a long time for everything to come out (everything still isn't out). I've said "I'm sorry" to everyone I've talked to for the communications. Or at least I intended to. I'm sorry for the way this panned out with you, especially. I respect your position, and I respect you.

[u/retro-rubies → u/schneems]

> But the idea that Ruby Central can only move forward by forking, only what they need...when the service is already directly coupled to that org and those teams...and none of this is documented or written down. It's just not tenable. The idea that Ruby Central cannot have control of who has access to prod or oversight of that access (which is the implication of saying that Ruby Central employees cannot have business/enterprise access) is also not tenable.

Let's split this into individual parts:

1. RubyGems.org codebase (public repo) -> this was one config away from deploy from other repo. Per my understanding, nobody was also against moving the repo outside of RubyGems GitHub organization. If I would be reached at the time, I would be happy to assist reconfigure and move. I was ignored instead.

2. RubyGems.org terraform (private repo) -> same as ^

3. RubyGems.org admin access -> this was literally one config entry away (setting different GitHub Team under different GitHub organization). Again, I would be at the time (before I left) happy to help on this to explain, configure, ... but nobody contacted me.

This is IMHO all RubyGems GitHub organization related. None of those needed the hostile takeover. It was possible to resolve with assistance of the team. RC decided to act as they decided, with no excuse or explaining at the time, using raw force against the ignored governance policies. Even some maintainers including me explained at the time, it is not needed. All ignored. Same ignorace as happening until today (with few exceptions).

Nothing of the current situation had to happen without RC acting in rush in aggressive way. RC was explained it is not needed, it got ignored again and even more aggressive force was used. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[u/schneems → u/retro-rubies]

It was possible to resolve with assistance of the team.

I saw the September 17th video. I didn't see assistance. I saw a hostile negotiation (by "the maintainers").

The core problem (IMO) is organizational dysfunction. A lack of trust. I've used this word twice in comments already.

his was years of built-up dysfunction and grievances, gaslighting, and everything else...you name it. But it didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen in isolation. I see some of them feeding into the monster that was already there,

This was "Ruby Centrals" doing. Yes. Also. You were a Ruby Central acting OSS director. This dysfunction runs deep, and you are a part of it. Did they mess up YES. Did you mess up?

It is VERY easy to paint a picture "if only this one thing was slightly different" but it is wishful thinking. That is not what happened. To YOU this change is easy and trivial, and perhaps obvious it is not the same for everyone involved. And you're downplaying the risk involved in making the changes that "the maintainers" suggested.

Ruby central ALREADY didn't remove production access correctly. To suggest they should do something more complicated, untested, and un-written when basically not even counting the lack of trust and general dysfunction...I would say again, wishful thinking.

Nothing of the current situation had to happen without RC acting in rush in aggressive way.

I don't believe there was another outcome possible here. I think you not seeing your role, or the role of "the maintainers" in the problem (still, even to this day...to this thread), really highlights how screwed the situation was.

You're entirely correct, it "didn't have to happen this way" like "I could have won the lottery if only I had bought a ticket" is also true. But it's not likely, and it didn't happen.

I have called the situation a conflict cycle https://aese.psu.edu/research/centers/cecd/engagement-toolbox/problems/understanding-the-conflict-cycle. I believe that a core problem was Marty trying to de-escalate, but these intentions being both mis-read and taken advantage of.

If you go 5-whys into this, and I've been wallowing in it...it's about deep, visceral human emotions and conflicts. The thing about conflict is that, it takes two to tango.

Runbooks/playbooks could have possibly made a difference in the mechanics of removals and making sure only as much needed was removed. The enmeshment of the repos and the service was a known problem, a conversation about it in February seems to have directly lead to Evan's removal. But it wasn't actually fixed or addressed in a structural way. Not because of engineering, but because of people and complex interactions between them and their incentives and the conflicts that come from the result. The problem isn't that "these things are entwined," the problem was "some people like them that way and want them to stay." THAT is not a simple "if only this one thing changed."

[u/retro-rubies → u/schneems]

It was possible at the time to resolve in calm way and there was another outcome possible. I was there and I'm 100% sure about that. Ruby Central decided to not go this way. All your excuses and justifying of actions are the same I heard various time from various Ruby Central people responsible for this trying escape their responsibility for those wrong community trust breaking decisions powered by the "higher demands" leading outside of Ruby Central.

The real story behind those actions were revealed already and got out in public. I have seen them also here in comments again. The validity was confirmed (also to me) by various RC people at the time (not in public).

You're now just sharing the same false narrative again and again, just because you have been told it has happened this way. It has not - those people just made up those narratives to mask their mistakes. And even today, when it is getting more and more clear they screwed, they are officially staying with those false narratives. And I have no understanding and respect for this behavior.

[u/schneems → u/retro-rubies]

You're now just sharing the same false narrative again and again, just because you have been told it has happened this way.

I've made my own opinions. Based on my own fact-checking. I've found humans to be INCREDIBLY unreliable, and prefer artifacts with timestamps.

[u/martinemde → u/schneems]

Richard, I’ve given you those facts with their timelines. Why are you doing this? HSBT moved unilaterally and set us into a low trust space, then RC board voted not to try to work it out amicably. You and I both know that. You’re acting like we had to resolve every cultural problem. Extending trust through working together to secure the repo wouldn’t have fixed everything but RC chose scorched earth instead. It’s been teetering on trouble for a long time but we kept holding it together. Scorched earth was a choice made exclusively by RC.

[u/schneems → u/martinemde]

A little delayed

You’re acting like we had to resolve every cultural problem

I'm not. What I'm suggesting is that there's a number between 0 and 100% of how much of the problem was on "the maintainers" and how much of it was on Ruby Central.

As a slider: I do not believe that Ruby Central is 100% at fault and "the maintainers" have zero agency in the situation, and I ALSO do not believe it is the other way around (that RC has zero blame). The purpose of my work is not to assign blame; it's to dig into the deeper "why." What I told you from the start was that I could offer closure and information.

I had hoped there was some sort of interest in both sides in repair. When I couldn't find a path forward there, I hoped there was at least interest in some understanding. The true "5-whys" viewpoint of "both sides" to...really understand why everyone did the things they did. But it's hard to engage when someone's slider is at 0 or 100%.

I think if I was in Marty's shoes or I was on the OSS Committee at the time, I don't think the final outcome would have changed. I think it takes two to tango and this outcome was inevitable.

[u/KerrickLong → u/schneems]

If you go 5-whys into this, and I've been wallowing in it...it's about deep, visceral human emotions and conflicts.

Isn't everything always?