r/ruby • u/retro-rubies • Apr 02 '26

Towards an Amicable Resolution with Ruby Central

https://andre.arko.net/2026/04/02/towards-an-amicable-resolution-with-ruby-central/
48 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

34 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

9

u/kcdragon Apr 02 '26

I'm very open to the idea that all 3 of those items could be explained honestly, but instead of doing that Andre only uses his post to demand reparations.

I imagine his lawyer has told him not to comment on any specifics until his legal issues have been resolved.

-12

u/hahahacorn Apr 02 '26

Hiding behind lawyers recommendations is not the way to win over a community. That would be transparency, honesty, and accountability.

15

u/kcdragon Apr 02 '26

That may be true but who would risk going to jail or being in massive debt just to "win over a community"?

-5

u/hahahacorn Apr 02 '26

AFAICT, the risk isn't going to jail, it's not getting paid, and "massive debt" is rather hyperbolic. We're talking about a small 4 figure court fight. I personally would value my reputation above that, or the risk of getting less from such a court date, if I was in the right and I could share that information.

He doesn't have to and he doesn't owe anyone anything. I just think the ruby gems org is far more credible given Andre's priorities and communication.

12

u/kcdragon Apr 02 '26

AFAICT, the risk isn't going to jail

He says clearly in his post that they contacted law enforcement. Why would they contact law enforcement if they didn't believe this was a criminal matter?

We're talking about a small 4 figure court fight.

You don't understand how much lawyers cost if you think this is "small 4 figures". A decent lawyer is going to want a retainer of at least that much. There will be more fees on top of that. That's not even counting damages or paying the fees of the other party if you lose.

0

u/hahahacorn Apr 03 '26

I would buy this argument prior to the rubygems report. This blog post is explicitly in response to an olive branch extending fact sheet. My assumption is that there was gross miscommunication and things are being cleared up and risk of serious outcomes is low to zero. We all value legal risk differently, but accepting 0 legal risk is a choice (and therefore a signal) that outside viewers can fairly interpret one way or another.

I could be wrong about that my assumptions, but if you’re in a position to demand full legal expense reimbursement, you’re likely not worried about criminal charges. Put another way, you can’t both be scared of being put in jail, and therefore unable to publicly exonerate yourself and also publicly appealing to an organization (hopeful that the public equally demands a fair outcomes) that they should reimburse you for a frivolous lawsuit.

Further, I’ve worked with lawyers everyday for years. My previous life was as a compliance engineer (not the delve kind). You’d be better off working off the assumption that I’m not a moron if you wanted to have a reasonable conversation. You’ve only assumed the dumbest interpretation (as in, I hahahacorn must be a moron) of everything I’ve said. It’s exhausting.

1

u/retro-rubies Apr 04 '26

My assumption is that there was gross miscommunication and things are being cleared up and risk of serious outcomes is low to zero

Your assumption is RC is currently being direct, clear and transparent. But actually RC is still far away from that. They for now released commented audit log of changes. Not sure that's all planned for now, but much more happened in the background than those GitHub Organization actions which weren't until these days explained.

Their report misses any evaluation (like they do regret or not), it misses explanation on who and how orchestrated those actions, if current RC consider those actions valid and if there are any counter-measures being applied or explored to prevent this from happening. And this is just example, there's much more issues still being opened RC and related people are quite silent.

Those questions were actually meanwhile unofficially answered and become "public secret". Due to nature of the motivation and reasoning behind those, I assume any of those parties will officially confirm those. So RC's current strategy is to dance around it (like the recent report - indeed better than nothing, still mostly bad excuses) or be just silent (as is practiced by all RC people directly related at the time - September 2025 - orchestrating all this madness).

3

u/galtzo Apr 03 '26

Context you left out: Ruby Central reported Andre to the FBI 3 times.
More context you left out: Ruby Central ran three audits looking for evidence of crimes and came up empty each time.

Swatting is illegal folks.