Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

The Rubygems.org takeover

The Rubygems.org takeover

15 comments

·October 21, 2025

deedubaya

All of this sucks, and it’s time for the community to move on.

It’s a bad look for the ruby ecosystem. Continuing to rehash, throw mud, and speculate at this point likely harms the greater community more than any “side” would “win”.

hshdhdhehd

It would have been a better angle to title it "gem.coop - the new homebrew-like place to get your gems" and then talk of the advantages for users and the simplicity of the file change to use it.

mattmcknight

It seems like things have ended up in a better place than they started.

yencabulator

> Many people have also taken note of the fact that Hansson joined the Shopify board of directors last year.

> "Shopify specifically put immense financial pressure on Ruby Central to take full control of the RubyGems GitHub organisation and Ruby gems"

Well that explains everything.

ChrisArchitect

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45615863

And so much discussion at every step of the way

null

[deleted]

PaulHoule

Isn't this the reason why there's been such an uptick of talk about DHH lately?

jmcgough

Related, but not the reason for it. DHH has been posting increasingly racist blogs.

PaulHoule

Not sure if I really believe that.

The politics have been smouldering on forever. That governance event w/ Rubygems seems like a once in every twenty years kind of event. Unfortunately racist blog posts are like one every five seconds, you're kinda platforming somebody by trying to deplatform them for that. Like it or not 34% of people in the UK said they would vote for Reform

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/reform-uk-leads-12-pts-over-labo...

and you can't change that by finger wagging at those people, drop what you are doing and watch this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b46LtbbZ5JE

... but it's too hard to have a war with the UK so you gotta fight some washed up rando.

null

[deleted]

joshmn

DHH stirred an uproar because of his political opinions. He had a post on his blog around the same time of the Rubygems drama; the community was already had heightened anxiety.

sgentle

To quote DHH: "when much of the media reports a story like this, it's often without citing the specific words in question"

I think you lose a lot when you abstract away someone's words as "positions that alienate". Pineapple on pizza is a position that alienates, as is forced sterilisation of criminals. So here's some specific words:

> London is no longer the city I was infatuated with in the late '90s and early 2000s. Chiefly because it's no longer full of native Brits [ie white, as specified by the Wikipedia article the words "native Brits" link to]

> There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese.

He doesn't think brown people belong in the UK. His "positions" are racism. He's racist. That's the problem.

Where have all the enlightenment-values rationalist monks gone now that we so desperately need people to combine P and P -> Q?

flat_zoo

You are reading what you want to read, not what's there. Where did he mention skin color? Has DHH also written Wiki article you mentioned? How is it relevant then? "Brits" in his context is about culture, not skin color. Have you managed to read to Danish PM quote or stopped at the first phrase you didn't like? Hint: don't miss the key word there which is "integration". Has nothing to do with race.

sgentle

As I said, the Wikipedia article is what the words "native Brits" links to.

Here's the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

Here's what the article says:

> In 2011, it was reported for the first time that White British people had become a minority within the city

How could you possibly come to the conclusion that it's not about race? Do you think he linked to the wrong article by accident?

null

[deleted]