- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 641
Remove link to Discord #3655
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Remove link to Discord #3655
Conversation
| Sorry, I didn't see #3654. But neither that one or this one is continuation of the linked discussion. It is a new one. What is the criteria to have links here? How does the Ruby core know the links here fit the criteria? How does the Ruby core know the links here still fit the criteria after they are already in the page? | 
| @rafaelfranca it's worth noting that your PR is missing many of the other languages that were covered by @gregmolnar in #3654. | 
Given Ruby core isn't willing to make calls about proper or improper moderation in this Discord server (see ruby#3639 (comment)), it should not be recommending it in its website. Having links listed here make them look official, vetted and endorsed by the Ruby Core, which I don't believe it is the case. While I agree with not accepting the other PR to add additional server, the reason to reject that one should apply to also not have the existent one. If it isn't official, it doesn't belongs here.
| FWIW, the convention in this repo doesn't require English content update to be applied to all translated versions at once. There are translation teams who are usually very quick at picking up changes made to the English version in separate PRs. | 
| 
 Looks like most of the other links are unofficial, either. Shall we nuke the page? 
 🆙. Makes people (including me) wonder what got those links on the page in their first places. | 
| 
 Can we document this policy somewhere, or otherwise just change the copy on this page to reflect the change in policy? Just trying to make sure we only have this conversation once and not every six months 😆 | 
| imo ruby has had enough drama lately so the policy should be either a) any open ruby community over e.g. 1k users can list itself without any endorsement this avoids PRs and arguments. for better or worse its the world we live in | 
| @Akseluhreyter see #2613. I didn't merge that. | 
| 
 I have to disagree with this. This can not be reduced to mere numbers. We keep a list on the Ruby discord of about a two dozen other communities. I'll recommend all of them. Every single one. But @gregmolnar and @jclusso's server? They have consistently violated community standards and keep trying to create political stunts for their own gain. The Ruby community should not act like them and should be wary of others like them | 
| 
 I apologize @hsbt. You're right I jumped the gun. However I'd like to argue our status as official should still stand. Ruby core appears to have been aware of us. Several Ruby core lurk on the server. We have never received complaints. And if there are complaints from core, we'd like to try to resolve them. | 
| 
 Remind me what either of us gain? Also, remind what we violated? | 
| 
 If #3639 (and its drama) can be forgotten overnight, then surely so can whatever the past behaviour was. | 
| I've added a comment to the original locked thread to clarify my wording. The Ruby core editorial group reviewed the current discord and does not wish to remove it. | 
Given Ruby core isn't willing to make calls about proper or improper moderation in this Discord server (see #3639 (comment)), it should not be recommending it in its website.
Having links listed here make them look official, vetted and endorsed by the Ruby Core, which I don't believe it is the case.
While I agree with not accepting the other PR to add additional server, the reason to reject that one should apply to also not have the existent one.
If it isn't official, it doesn't belongs here.