Open Source Turmoil: RubyGems Maintainers Kicked Off GitHub 75
Ruby Central, a non-profit organization committed to "driving innovation and building community within the Ruby programming ecosystem since 2001," removed all RubyGems maintainers from the project's GitHub repository on September 18, granting administrative access exclusively to its employees and contractors following alleged pressure from Shopify, one of its biggest backers, according to Ruby developer Joel Drapper. The nonprofit organization, which operates RubyConf and RailsConf, cited fiduciary responsibility and supply chain security concerns following a recent audit.
The controversy began September 9 when HSBT (Hiroshi Shibata), a Ruby infrastructure maintainer, renamed the RubyGems GitHub enterprise to "Ruby Central" and added Director of Open Source Marty Haught as owner while demoting other maintainers. The action allegedly followed Shopify's threat to cut funding unless Ruby Central assumed full ownership of RubyGems and Bundler. Ruby Central had reportedly become financially dependent on Shopify after Sidekiq withdrew $250,000 annual sponsorship over the organization platforming Rails creator DHH at RailsConf 2025. Andre Arko, a veteran contributor on-call for RubyGems.org at the time, was among those removed.
Maintainer Ellen Dash has characterized the action as a "hostile takeover" and also resigned. Executive Director Shan Cureton acknowledged poor communication in a YouTube video Monday, stating removals were temporary while finalizing operator agreements. Arko and others are launching Spinel, an alternative Ruby tooling project, though Shopify's Rafael Franca commented that Spinel admins shouldn't be trusted to avoid "sabotaging rubygems or bundler."
The controversy began September 9 when HSBT (Hiroshi Shibata), a Ruby infrastructure maintainer, renamed the RubyGems GitHub enterprise to "Ruby Central" and added Director of Open Source Marty Haught as owner while demoting other maintainers. The action allegedly followed Shopify's threat to cut funding unless Ruby Central assumed full ownership of RubyGems and Bundler. Ruby Central had reportedly become financially dependent on Shopify after Sidekiq withdrew $250,000 annual sponsorship over the organization platforming Rails creator DHH at RailsConf 2025. Andre Arko, a veteran contributor on-call for RubyGems.org at the time, was among those removed.
Maintainer Ellen Dash has characterized the action as a "hostile takeover" and also resigned. Executive Director Shan Cureton acknowledged poor communication in a YouTube video Monday, stating removals were temporary while finalizing operator agreements. Arko and others are launching Spinel, an alternative Ruby tooling project, though Shopify's Rafael Franca commented that Spinel admins shouldn't be trusted to avoid "sabotaging rubygems or bundler."
Wow (Score:1)
People still use ruby?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we should all be reminded at this point of the ultimate programming rant, "Rails is a Ghetto" [cat-v.org].
When I read it first, I thought that Zed must be some kind of unbalanced nutter. I then was forced into using Rails on a project after which I came to the conclusion that Zed must have been one of the most stable and sane friendly and forgiving people ever to write software. Maybe we should buy one of his books [amazon.co.uk]?
Re: (Score:2)
Rust rewrites aren't panaceas and some have been causing problems.
Broad adoption of a language like it is long overdue but it's not magic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to wean myself off it, honestly !
Good luck with that, I've been trying for decades.
Re: (Score:1)
I found deleting my account to be helpful.
So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
So the problem with these kind of splits (Score:2)
Especially with a language like Ruby that isn't as popular as it once was. I mean it's not like it's Fortran or something where it's a specialty language but still.
Plenty of good Linux distros have died horrible deaths from forking.
It already is a mess. (Score:1)
Platforming DHH (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone pulled funding because a Ruby con "platformed" the creator of Rails?
I think you've missed the boat if that's where you're at.
Re: (Score:1)
that's what i'm saying it's fucking retarded but downvoted as flamebait apparently.
platforming Rails creator DHH at RailsConf 2025 (Score:1, Troll)
How dare they platform the creator at the conf about his creation ?
Holy shit some people are now legit insane. It's the god damn creator, if anyone deserves a platform, it's him. Good riddance to rubbish fascists who'd cheer for deplatforming the creator of the creation they depend on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe look into why people aren't happy about this? https://github.com/Plan-Vert/o... [github.com]
Is that a Babylon Bee authored satire text, or is this an authentic document of people derailing a software project into a political charade?
Re: (Score:1)
It's people annoyed enough with DHH and his views to vote with their wallets. Sidekiq pulled a $250,000/year donation from Ruby Central. [ruby.social]
The dude has always been a dick, so I don't pay any attention to him to see the things he posts online. Apparently people are fed up.
Re: (Score:2)
It's people annoyed enough with DHH and his views to vote with their wallets. Sidekiq pulled a $250,000/year donation from Ruby Central. [ruby.social]
The dude has always been a dick, so I don't pay any attention to him to see the things he posts online. Apparently people are fed up.
When it comes to "always been a dick" could you be a bit more specific. The example I see [archive.org] is a person expressing a view about the education of his own children which is something parents have a responsibility to do. His example, if true, comes within stuff that parents should have a right to express views about.
Is there any example of DHH actually harming Rails project contributors or acting bigoted towards them?
Re: (Score:3)
When it comes to "always been a dick" could you be a bit more specific. The example I see [archive.org] is a person expressing a view about the education of his own children which is something parents have a responsibility to do. His example, if true, comes within stuff that parents should have a right to express views about.
Is there any example of DHH actually harming Rails project contributors or acting bigoted towards them?
That statement is purely personal opinion and it dates back to 2012 or so. I honestly have not paid any attention to him since around that time so I don’t know what he has or hasn’t done to the project maintainers. I also agree that he should absolutely be concerned about things affecting his children.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, thanks, data point accepted for what it is. Rubbing people up the wrong way just can have consequences, justified or not. The fact that that link is the main evidence of him being a "bad man" leads me to think he actually hasn't done much wrong this time round. There would otherwise be a better clearer and less potentially justifiable example of him being transphobic.
Re: (Score:2)
Now do Roseanne Barr and Gina Carano. But yeah, it's tote MAGA who is the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:platforming Rails creator DHH at RailsConf 2025 (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly the same as MAGA has adopted for Jimmy Kimmel.
No, the chair of the FCC publicly and specifically targeted Kimmel. Sinclair and Nexstar both have decisions pending at the FCC; they did not independently decide to go after him.
This was a clear-cut violation of the first amendment. It's not even close.
Re: (Score:2)
Which shouldn't be a surprise, he directly and without any trace of humor or irony insulted them and the half of the country they reflect.
Re: (Score:2)
This was a clear-cut violation of the first amendment. It's not even close.
This country has been veering wildly from the Constitution for many years now. The fact that the Constitution is being blatantly violated now is a clear consequence of not correcting previous encroachments. It's ok though, we will just blame it on The People for being dumb enough to vote for this rather than blaming it on the people who made it possible and are actually doing it.
Re:platforming Rails creator DHH at RailsConf 2025 (Score:5, Insightful)
The left-wing activists are pulling the old 'However, free speech is not "freedom from the consequences of that speech", '
Exactly the same as MAGA has adopted for Jimmy Kimmel. You are free as long as you agree with us.
Fuck cancel culture, whatever tribe they identify with.
The founders of this country signed the Declaration of Independence knowing that there would be consequences of their choice to speak up against tyranny. Freedom is not freedom from consequence. Courage is not hiding, but standing your ground and accepting the consequences of your actions.
I support your freedom to speak your mind. I will punch you in the mouth if you talk shit about my wife. Freedom with consequences.
Where MAGA fucked up is in applying GOVERNMENT pressure to have Disney cancel Kimmel. Carr (head of the FCC) spoke publicly, and said that the FCC would punish Disney if they did not remove Kimmel. That is a violation of the First Amendment. He should be impeached for such a flagrant violation of his oath of office. Consequences.
Individuals have a right to tell Disney what they feel about its employees public performances (good or bad). Disney has the right to decide whether to employ Kimmell or not (subject to his employment contract). No one owes you a job. Consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
I support your freedom to speak your mind. I will punch you in the mouth if you talk shit about my wife.
And I support your freedom. But I'll shoot you if you say your wife can have a penis. Consequences, eh?
Fuckin' sanctimonious hypocrites.
Re: (Score:2)
p.s. That is a parody response to GPs casual threats of violence. Violence has no place in debate.
Local idiot does not even know he is a brownshirt.
Re: (Score:1)
> I support your freedom to speak your mind. I will punch you in the mouth if you talk shit about my wife.
The problem here is that speaking shit about your wife is legal. Punching people in the mouth for it doesn't work as speaking shit about your wife doesn't meet the "Fighting Words" test, so you'll get arrested for battery, because it's illegal to punch people.
If you punch me though, I get the right to self-defense, so I can legally punch you back.
You're wrong about this. Consequences for speech is
Re: (Score:3)
If Kimmel ran afoul of the regulations (he did)
How? Be specific.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy enough :
https://www.fcc.gov/sites/defa... [fcc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
From your link:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I dunno... this will probably get me flamed, but what the heck.
I'm getting rather tired of all the intolerance from both the right AND the left.
If this DHH guy was allowing these personal views to cause problems for the project, or treating trans or gay contributors differently (or encouraging others to do so), then sure - I'd be 100% behind him getting the boot. If he was saying these things while wearing the banner of "Creator of Rails" in some manner, I could perhaps still see an argument for separating
Re: (Score:2)
Agree, Mozilla became a worse browser then they ousted Brendan Eich.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla didn't oust Brendan Eich.
Brendan Eich paid his own money personally in an attempt to harm a quite large number of people who were working at Mozilla. That's his right. It's also the right of them and their friends to not work for Eich. After Eich paid money to harm his employees he faced the prospect of most of the employees leaving and as CEO he had a duty to the company to look after its interests. At that point he could have stuck it out and lost significant numbers of the best employees, or quit
Re: (Score:3)
"{t]hey get to decide what's harmful to them not you."
Gonna have to disagree with you there. You absolutely get to have a say in what's harmful to you. But you don't get to decide unilaterally. Otherwise, I can just decide that the fact that nobody's given me a billion dollars is harmful to me.
Re: (Score:2)
You alone get to decide what's harmful to you. No one is obligated to agree of course.
But telling someone that the harm isn't real or is just politics (as if the force of law erased the harm somehow) doesn't make it less so for that person. In other words of someone thinks you have harmed them you cannot logic or browbeat then into not feeling harmed.
And what with free speech and free association and shit, they are entitled to act on that.
Re: (Score:2)
If I decide on what's harmful to me but nobody agrees, I haven't decided anything. We live in a society. Determinations of what is harmful or is not harmful are only meaningful in the context of that society.
"they are entitled to act on that."
No, they are not guaranteed that. Actions are not speech and are not always protected.
Re: (Score:2)
What? If you decide something is harmful to you, you should act on it. Don't just stand there like a wretched lemon being harmed. Take charge of your life.
And in the free world, freedom of some arsehole's speech dies NOT, and let me repeat again NOT take precedence over other people's freedom of speech or freedom of association. The latter is if course every bit as much of a fundamental right as the former.
Eich used his "freedom of speech" (money in his case) to harm people. They have every right to say "I
Re: (Score:2)
"What? If you decide something is harmful to you, you should act on it. Don't just stand there like a wretched lemon being harmed. Take charge of your life"
Act on it, yes, but that doesn't mean you have a right to whatever action you decide on. There are limits.
"freedom of speech or freedom of association. The latter is if course every bit as much of a fundamental right as the former."
No, it's not. Freedom of association is a secondary right. It's explicitly abridged by civil rights acts that mandate com
Re: (Score:2)
Act on it, yes, but that doesn't mean you have a right to whatever action you decide on. There are limits.
Yes, and (a) threatening to quit and (b) quitting are well within those limits.
No, it's not. Freedom of association is a secondary right. It's explicitly abridged by civil rights acts that mandate commercial establishments not refuse service on the basis of race, for example.
By that measure, Freedom of speech is a secondary right. It's explicitly abridged by laws against slander, libel, perjury and frau
Re: (Score:2)
What they really mean when they say "freedom of speech" is "I should be allowed to say what I like and you must not react negatively to it". Free speech for me, censorship for thee.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And even using freedom of speech to criticise of frowned upon. And this of course is from the main proponents of cancel culture. I think one of the main tenets of conservatism is to shout very loudly about something you're doing that you know is shit, blaming it on the other side.
Re: (Score:2)
> they get to decide what's harmful to them not you.
Your slashdot account is harmful to everyone here, yet you're still here.
If people can just decide to remove anything they personally deem harmful, the firing squads will run out of bullets real quick.
Re: (Score:2)
Your slashdot account is harmful to everyone here, yet you're still here.
So what are you going to do about it, bucko? The door is right over there and if you threaten to leave or do so, I'll laugh at your arse vanishing into the sunset.
But then again, I have no duty to this website, and you're not important here, so I'm not inert an obligation to get you to stay. Unlike Eich who as CEO had a duty and and unlike a significant fraction of employees who were important.
If people can just decide to remove anythi
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What does fascism mean? Many experts agree that fascism is a mass political movement that emphasizes extreme nationalism, militarism, and the supremacy of the nation over the individual. This model of government stands in contrast to liberal democracies that support individual rights, competitive elections, and political dissent.
source: https://education.cfr.org/lear... [cfr.org]
Does that still make sense to you here?
I didn't know who Charlie Kirk was before he was assassinated, clearly you do.
I don't have a "political divide", I feel people should live their lives they way they want to, if they choose to be divisive, discriminatory, etc. then they should be prepared for the backlash.
As I stated in another response, I've always disliked DHH, so I don't pay any attention to him. My main concern here is it's going to fracture the Ruby ecos
Re: (Score:1)
> if they choose to be divisive, discriminatory, etc. then they should be prepared for the backlash.
Which is exactly what your Heroes at "Plan-Vert" are doing.
> I don't have an interest in "punching a nazi", not that they don't deserve it.
So you do.
> sounds like you are down for a shot to the face though.
And there we are, pretending to be neutral, while in fact being a violent progressive who's all in on political violence. Really fascist of you.
Re: (Score:2)
And there we are, pretending to be neutral, while in fact being a violent progressive who's all in on political violence. Really fascist of you.
I never pretended to be neutral
How is this situation in any way "political"?
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
I even provided you a definition, since you are clearly too lazy to look it up yourself.
Let me provide you some options from the thesaurus, maybe this will help.
fascism
noun
authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; nationalism, xenophobia, racism; neo-fascism, neo-Nazism; corporati
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! Mozilla/Brendan Eich deja-vu.
Re: (Score:2)
If the open letter in fact did state why people aren't happy with him, it would help. All I read was "He's a big racist meanie and everybody should shun him. Oh, and here's a link to his blog, but you'll need to spend a few hours yourself to search out the racist bits, 'cause we won't tell you where or what they are."
Re: (Score:2)
My reaction: The "F word" (Score:1)
Fork you!
Bad title (Score:5, Informative)
The title is very misleading.
The maintainers were not "kicked off GitHub" - GitHub had no part in this, and the maintainers still have access to GitHub.
The maintainers were removed from a private organisation and its repos by the organisation owner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bad title (Score:4, Insightful)
"kicked off repo" would've been easy and made more sense, if that's the case.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
True! Next time I submit something, perhaps I'll use
"This Story Had a Great Descriptive Title, but Slashdot Clip"
Re: (Score:2)
This particular title is copy-pasted from the article, so if it is a length limit it's not /.'s fault.
Re: (Score:2)
The title is very misleading.
The maintainers were not "kicked off GitHub" - GitHub had no part in this, and the maintainers still have access to GitHub.
The maintainers were removed from a private organisation and its repos by the organisation owner.
No, that's not true - at least, according to those involved (I have no way of verifying): the GitHub repos did not belong to the organisation - the organisation decided that it wanted to own them, so it persuaded someone who had sufficient access to give them the access and remove it from the people who did legitimately own them.