Hi, I am not exactly sure how best to frame this, but recent events have got me wondering where exactly Framework, as a company, stands with regards to human rights and equality. If I understand correctly (and please do correct me if I am wrong), it seems like Framework has started sponsoring Hyprland: So I presume this is fact: Framework, as a company, has decided to sponsor a Wayland compositor who is well known to be led as a rather “toxic and hateful community”. Separately, but on the ...

Title of the (concerning) thread on their community forum, not voluntary clickbait. Came across the thread thanks to a toot by @Khrys@mamot.fr (French speaking)

The gist of the issue raised by OP is that framework sponsors and promotes projects lead by known toxic and racists people (DHH among them).

I agree with the point made by the OP :

The “big tent” argument works fine if everyone plays by some basic civil rules of understanding. Stuff like code of conducts, moderation, anti-racism, surely those things we agree on? A big tent won’t work if you let in people that want to exterminate the others.

I’m disappointed in framework’s answer so far

  • Sickday@kbin.earth
    17·
    2 days ago

    A bit surprised there was no discussion about this on any Fediverse instances.

    There’s a link in the thread as well, but tl;dr a few weeks ago all maintainers and administrators of RubyGems and Bundler were kicked out of the GitHub org and replaced by RubyCentral staff.

    Here’s another article better explaining the situation https://thenewstack.io/open-source-turmoil-rubygems-maintainers-kicked-off-github/

    As far as what DHH has to do with this, the article shared in the actual framework thread goes into better detail.

    https://joel.drapper.me/p/rubygems-takeover/

    About six hours after Ellen broke the news, Ruby Central published their response: Strengthening the Stewardship of RubyGems and Bundler.

    A post that feels like AI-generated corporate speak and bears no signature from anyone at Ruby Central willing to take responsibility.

    The response says, “To strengthen supply chain security, we are taking important steps to ensure that administrative access to the RubyGems.org, RubyGems, and Bundler is securely managed. This includes both our production systems and GitHub repositories. In the near term we will temporarily hold administrative access to these projects while we finalize new policies that limit commit and organization access rights. This decision was made and approved by the Ruby Central Board as part of our fiduciary responsibility.”

    But while Ruby Central has the right to lock down the RubyGems.org Service infrastructure, it never owned the RubyGems GitHub repositories.

    DHH ignored Ellen’s post but instead retweeted the Ruby Central announcement with the caption “Ruby Central is making the right moves to ensure the Ruby supply chain is beyond reproach both technically and organisationally.”

    A position that seems to stand in stark contrast to his other opinions. For example, he criticised Apple’s control of the App Store and takes the ownership of his own open source projects seriously.