Eh, it's a messy write-up. The article's stream of consciousness is hard to follow. Too much detail in some areas, not enough in others.

It's true Ruby Central was a fiasco and the maintainers should have been treated better. But the author's investigation misses important elements like the "culture war" on both sides. That seems to be prime motivation for everyone involved, given the flames raging in the comments below.

It also skipped over the elephant in the room which is NPM's security issues.

This was likely a reaction to a mix of NPM + culture war/deplatforming, where power player got nervous and decided to clamp down on rubygems security to insulate it from hypothetical bad actors.

Your critique of the author's writing style doesn't seem like your strongest argument.

> It's true Ruby Central was a fiasco and the maintainers should have been treated better.

Treated better as in ... not removed from their own projects? Treated better as in... not kicked out of things they built by someone else who has something to gain?

Treated better is not the phrase to describe what should have happened here.