Skip to content

Conversation

@schneems
Copy link
Contributor

@schneems schneems commented Dec 12, 2025

This provides a starting point for a Governance doc. It attempts to:

  • Document the current state of norms with regard to Matz and Ruby core.
  • Present a well-defined boundary between Ruby Central (RC) and the technical management of the ruby/rubygems repository. This is achieved by separating administrative access (ability) from decision-making capability. Under this model, Ruby Central would need to work through a core team (via norms/communication) for permanent changes.
  • Establish an explicit security team that can make swift decisions regarding access and threats. For example, if Ruby Central believed there was an active threat, they would need the buy-in from the security team to temporarily remove someone and the buy-in from the core team to permanently remove someone.
  • Tighten norms around commit access and "active" status. While it's common for some Ruby open-source projects to have inactive members for many years, this project has a very large surface area that affects all Ruby users and the RubyGems.org service. I am seeking a stricter set of norms. Commit access can be a point of pride and identity for developers; to that end, I'm suggesting adopting a way to memorialize that status via an "alumni" status.
  • Separate development from release capability.

This document was reviewed and approved by the RC board. It was previously shared privately for feedback with Ruby core contributors (specifically, @hsbt, who is listed as the Ruby integrator of RubyGems) and with a maintainer of ruby/rubygems @colby-swandale, who had commit access prior to the repo being moved from rubygems/rubygems and has commit access now.

I've also reached out to several of the group of six who identify themselves as "the maintainers." The ones I spoke to expressed that they're unhappy with the communication and how events unfolded, and don't wish to work for or with RC. They're not willing to accept access as it's been offered. I understand that they've moved on to gem-coop and spinel-coop.

  • This document is intended to be provisional, with an explicit mandate to replace and re-draft governance written in the doc.

This provides a starting point for a Governance doc. It attempts to:

- Document the current state of norms with regard to Matz and Ruby core.
- Present a well-defined boundary between Ruby Central (RC) and the technical management of the `ruby/rubygems` repository. This is achieved by separating administrative access (ability) from decision-making capability. Under this model, Ruby Central would need to work through a core team (via norms/communication) for permanent changes.
- Establish an explicit security team that can make swift decisions regarding access and threats. For example, if Ruby Central believed there was an active threat, they would need the buy-in from the security team to temporarily remove someone and the buy-in from the core team to permanently remove someone.
- Tighten norms around commit access and "active" status. While it's common for some Ruby open-source projects to have inactive members for many years, this project has a very large surface area that affects all Ruby users and the RubyGems.org service. I am seeking a stricter set of norms. Commit access can be a point of pride and identity for developers; to that end, I'm suggesting adopting a way to memorialize that status via an "alumni" status.
- Separate development from release capability.

This document was reviewed and approved by the RC board. It was previously shared privately for feedback with Ruby core contributors (specifically, @hsbt, who is listed as the Ruby integrator of RubyGems) and with a maintainer of `ruby/rubygems` @colby-swandale, who had commit access prior to the repo being moved from `rubygems/rubygems` and has commit access now. 

I've also reached out to several of the other former paid maintainers from the [group of six](https://github.com/gem-coop) who identify themselves as "the maintainers." The ones I spoke to expressed that they're unhappy with the communication and how events unfolded, and don't wish to work for or with RC. They're not willing to accept access as it's been offered. I understand that they've moved on to gem-coop and spinel-coop.

- This document is intended to be provisional, with an explicit mandate to replace and re-draft governance written in the doc.
@indirect
Copy link
Contributor

@schneems who, exactly, did you reach out to? Since you did not reach out to me, I do not want to be included in your summary of "the group".

schneems and others added 2 commits December 13, 2025 09:32
Co-authored-by: Sutou Kouhei <kou@cozmixng.org>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants