rfcs

Do the former maintainers have full commit access? Remember, this is what was taken in the middle of a discussion about governance. https://github.com/rubygems/rfcs/pull/61

It's not just one person. Between the initial removal of access, then giving it back after explaining it was a mistake; the people involved started a conversation about governance to clarify/fix things. https://github.com/rubygems/rfcs/pull/61 The conversation terminated because the majority of those people then had their access revoked again. When weighing the facts here; which group or claimant has the most evidence for their claims? The technical folks with lots of commits over many years, or the treasurer of an organisation who says the impetus for this was a "funding deadline" so all access had to be seized?

There is some more context on a post[1] in /r/ruby, including the fact that the maintainers and others had been working on a proposal[2] for a formalized organizational governance structure as recently as yesterday. The latter also adds some context into Mike McQuaid's involvement: the proposal was influenced by the structure put in place by the Homebrew project. [1]: https://old.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/1nkzszc/ruby_centrals... [2]: https://github.com/rubygems/rfcs/pull/61