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.
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?
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?