Why I'm not rushing to take sides in the RubyGems fiasco

Perceived Bias and “Neutrality” of the Article

• Many readers say the post is framed as “not taking sides” while functionally taking a clear anti-André position.
• Some defend it as a contextual piece aimed at explaining why the author isn’t joining the current pro-André narrative, not as a full retelling of events.
• Others argue the “reserving judgment” stance is unconvincing when concrete public actions are already known and can be evaluated now.

Relevance of Past Behavior to Current RubyGems Conflict

• Supporters of the article see it as surfacing long-standing, semi-open concerns about André’s behavior, fundraising, and conflict style, which might explain Shopify’s and Ruby Central’s mistrust.
• Critics say most anecdotes (Heroku, Google Cloud, dongle/expenses stories) are old, minor, or already resolved with apologies, and don’t justify the recent takeover actions.
• There is disagreement on whether this constitutes a “pattern” or cherry-picked grievances.

Ruby Together Money, Compensation, and Transparency

• Dispute over André’s hourly rate: initially portrayed as high, then corrected to ~$150/hr with public filings suggesting ~$30k/year on average—painting a more modest picture.
• Some are “not shocked” by that rate given contractor costs and SF living expenses; others focus more on donor expectations and transparency about what contributions fund.
• Debate over whether expensing hardware and meals is normal business practice vs. misleading to donors if not clearly communicated.

Shopify, Ruby Central, and Power Dynamics

• A synthesized “good faith” reading from one commenter: years of perceived unprofessional conduct by André, then Shopify as dominant funder pushes Ruby Central to take control of Bundler/RubyGems and exclude him.
• Even under that interpretation, people criticize the lack of transparency and the heavy-handed use of financial leverage.
• Some suspect legal exposure is why Shopify/Ruby Central say little publicly; others think that silence exacerbates distrust.

Evaluation of Specific Evidence and Narrative Techniques

• Multiple comments call out the article’s language (“was interpreted as,” “obscuring authorship”) as loaded and tendentious.
• The rv-ruby fork example in particular is criticized: license and history were preserved, so claims of erasing authorship are seen as overstated.
• Some describe the piece as a “petty hit” or “borderline defamation”; others view it as much-needed airing of issues otherwise only whispered privately.

Broader Themes: Nonprofits, Funding, and Governance

• Side discussion on nonprofits that invoke “mission” while spending most funds on salaries/overhead; terms suggested include “lying by omission” and “hostage puppies.”
• Several commenters generalize to a pattern of VC-backed companies clashing with open source once control and risk rise.
• There are calls for a more trusted, drama-free steward of Ruby infrastructure, with one person wishing control would move to Ruby core/Ruby Association in Japan.