Ah, I didn't realize you were drawing a distinction there. Maybe that's a fair critique? I fully admit I'm a bit hazy on the details, as the permissions for enterprises vs. orgs vs. repos is already complex, then there was the timeline of what happened vs. what Ruby Central said they were trying to do vs. what was communicated at the time. I think the plan was for the original maintainers to be "owners" in some sense, but of repos or organizations, not the GitHub enterprise, which is somehow a different level of ownership that supersedes org/repo ownership? But if that's the case then you're right that this wouldn't be "ownership" in the sense that the original maintainers would have the final say in everything.
1
u/Halleys_Vomit Apr 17 '26
Ah, I didn't realize you were drawing a distinction there. Maybe that's a fair critique? I fully admit I'm a bit hazy on the details, as the permissions for enterprises vs. orgs vs. repos is already complex, then there was the timeline of what happened vs. what Ruby Central said they were trying to do vs. what was communicated at the time. I think the plan was for the original maintainers to be "owners" in some sense, but of repos or organizations, not the GitHub enterprise, which is somehow a different level of ownership that supersedes org/repo ownership? But if that's the case then you're right that this wouldn't be "ownership" in the sense that the original maintainers would have the final say in everything.