I'm sorry • Hacker News Board

Re: I'm sorry

#21

Post by bovermyer » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:15 PM UTC

Zababa wrote: post #11

Afforess wrote: post #5

I'm confused why the correct course of action isn't to revert the commit, ask the author to re-open the PR for comment, and follow the process. Why the tortious apology?

If I wanted to interpret this in a paranoiac way, I would say that's because the author of the PR isn't apologetic at all, and in fact is quite fine with forcing a PR through the maintainers without their consent.

Remember the old adage - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Hanlon's Razor, I believe it was.

And here, by "stupidity," I just mean the author didn't think about that.

Too often people are willing to attribute sinister meaning to what, in reality, was just a mistake.

Re: I'm sorry

#22

Post by oh_sigh » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:16 PM UTC

Is there a tl;dr of what happened? I read the apology and I have no idea if she is sorry or what she is supposed to be sorry for.

Re: I'm sorry

#23

Post by beachy » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:16 PM UTC

pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #10

holy fuck, does every little mistake need a solemn 4000 word apology these days? that’s already not a world i want to live in, but then even the apology gets shit on and invalidated. people need to take everything much less seriously, especially shit that happens on the internet. this whole thing should have been able to be a new PR with “sorry about the merge before, i screwed up and it won’t happen again” at the en…

The comments beneath the apology make the point (I couldn't quite follow it all) that this wasn't really an apology at all.

The lengthy word count might tend to confirm that,as you say a genuine apology should be terse and direct.

Re: I'm sorry

#24

Post by Aaronontheweb » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:16 PM UTC

Context: https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/38

Re: I'm sorry

#25

Post by Aaronontheweb » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:17 PM UTC

copperx wrote: post #4

Some context would be awesome. Is anybody here privy to the events surrounding this apology?

https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/38

Re: I'm sorry

#26

Post by rvz » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:18 PM UTC

Is there any point in saying sorry anymore? One commenter in the thread already described it as a non-apology.

For them, there is no '𝘴ₒᵣᵣy' or '...please, I can explain...' or 'it's not what you think it is'.

Once it has already been admitted, the road already looks like it is heading to no redemption.

Re: I'm sorry

#27

Post by markphip » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:20 PM UTC

Zababa wrote: post #16

pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #10

holy fuck, does every little mistake need a solemn 4000 word apology these days? that’s already not a world i want to live in, but then even the apology gets shit on and invalidated. people need to take everything much less seriously, especially shit that happens on the internet. this whole thing should have been able to be a new PR with “sorry about the merge before, i screwed up and it won’t happen again” at the en…

I think the apology is here because the author of the PR doesn't want to revert it. As you can see, it's still merged: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/blob/b930a34badfb2164f38... Edit: as lots of people said, I was on an older version of the file. I'm not sure how I did this, but I should have double-checked, especially since there was some base64 stuff in the URL.

I did not see any indication that she was asked to revert the PR. It seemed like it was more just about that she felt it was OK to bypass the policy.

Re: I'm sorry

#28

Post by bombcar » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #13

Afforess wrote: post #5

I'm confused why the correct course of action isn't to revert the commit, ask the author to re-open the PR for comment, and follow the process. Why the tortious apology?

I'd guess because of this part of the post: "There is a pattern that needs to be resolved. Projects might not fully understand what joining the .NET Foundation means..." This sounds like not only an apology, but an attempt to start a discussion surrounding the community overall and get everyone to have matching expectations.

“I’m sorry you don’t understand that I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it further.”

Re: I'm sorry

#29

Post by nickff » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:25 PM UTC

rvz wrote: post #26

Is there any point in saying sorry anymore? One commenter in the thread already described it as a non-apology. For them, there is no '𝘴ₒᵣᵣy' or '...please, I can explain...' or 'it's not what you think it is' . Once it has already been admitted, the road already looks like it is heading to no redemption.

The top comment on the apology is also an accusation of insufficient prostration.

I agree that internet culture seems antithetical to forgiveness, and have no idea what can be done about it.

Re: I'm sorry

#30

Post by markphip » Wed, Oct 06, 2021, 11:25 PM UTC

I did not really dive into the details of the legalese that was shared in the comments, but on the surface none of what the .NET Foundation doing seems that odd. How is it any different really from how Apache or Eclipse or many other foundations operate? I think it is less about the Foundation trying to seize the projects from the founders then it is the Foundation doing what it needs to do to apply its legal value to the projects ... which is seemingly why these projects decide to move to the foundation.

Maybe I just missed some nuance that was discussed in more depth elsewhere.