I’m ok with this, but I’ve seen projects saying “if you submit AI generated code you will be banned from all my projects.” This is super harsh. The most dysfunctional effect is to eliminate contributions by less experienced programmers and kids that are just learning. I support “please disclose”
Turns out people liked the “management podcast thing” Neha Batra and I did last week, so we made more: Minimum Viable Management is now a podcast. This time we talk about decisions, leadership, and other things managers pretend to be good at.
This is my wife’s trick too, you get whatever help you need if you’re stuck under the cat, but no one can pee for you. It’s a gift and a curse to be the cat’s favorite.
If I imagine this coming in it’s worth reviewing with the project leadership according to governance. I don’t know what everyone’s choice would be, but considering financial choices require transparency, this would have to be decided in the open. My guess is that means an automatic no, theoretically
I’ve been around on the internet long enough to understand that if you don’t pay for the product, you are the product. So I’m assuming this practice is common. I pay for Kagi.com and ad-free everything for this reason. It’s a drop in the bucket.
I’m opposed to selling log data. To my knowledge, gem.coop does not collect anything right now. The governance is open and any change in this position would be public knowledge and the minutes made public. The distinction about PII is out of my expertise and I will reserve my judgement right now.
I tried to explain why I don't believe the recent accusations toward my former teammates, as well as how the Ruby and Rails Infra team at Shopify operates and why it can be trusted.
Honestly, I think this is the only privacy policy I've ever read top to bottom. It's hard to read and decide what's actually true from this. Maximum humility here given my inexperience with this.
To that point, I'm announcing publicly my intention to run for the Project Lead of the gem.coop project. I've spoken to many of you about this, but I truly believe there's a chance to innovate, to make a better, transparent, open system run by maintainers that benefits us all and steps above this.
Hey folks. I'm still trying to reconcile the news today. 1. We are not selling any private info. RubyGems.org policies permit that, but gem.coop doesn't collect anything. 2. We need to have good leadership, elected transparently, with transparent finances. We're publishing our governance for that.
Shibata-san was not an employee. 3 of the people removed were actively paid by RC and required access to sensitive systems to do their jobs, and for 1 it was their only source of income. It's not clear cut "employee/not"
Point is, you don’t say “ok, Hsbt moved too quick to remove everyone, he shouldn’t have done that, miscommunication sorry, we restored ownership, please don’t retaliate” and then remove everyone again, fully, a few days later without any discussion, again.
The agreements don’t exist. They didn’t exist and I was never asked. I got hard removed while engaging in good faith discussion about “how should we decide who owns the repos”. I was enterprise owner and I could have removed Marty and Hsbt and we’d be having a different discussion right now.
I personally don’t think Shopify is the enemy here, but somehow it seems like the board thought funding was contingent on these actions. See Freedom’s post about a no vote on removing us being a vote to shutdown RC. You covered the way that influence happens, and certainly it did happen for RC. :(
“What we need is more companies doing their part.”
It’s often said that other languages and projects like Linux are successful because they have big backers from Google, etc. Shopify is that for Ruby, and others, like Gusto (my company), also do their part. I’m proud to be a part of this help.
