Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm sorry

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 277 posts

Re: I'm sorry

#81

Post by rectang »

genewitch wrote: post #49
sph wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but tl;dr? The link you posted is deep into some drama I don't know what it's referring to.

Allegedly some actions required .net foundation to have admin access to projects under their umbrella. The foundation then changed the copyright notices to dotnetfoundation instead of the actual owners. I didn't understand the drama above the comments entirely, though.

I don't see any copyright notices being changed in the PR in question: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778/files

Legally, copyright notices can only be changed by the copyright holder or their authorized agent. If someone from the DNF were to make an unauthorized, illegal change, it would be very surprising.

Re: I'm sorry

#82

Post by not2b »

shijie wrote: post #72
burnished wrote: post #57

What is with the comments calling this a non-appology? Do they need a hair shirt to make sure the sinners really suffer? Hyperbole aside its kind of jarring reading a frank apology and ownership of actions (what they did, how it impacted others, why it was bad) that then gets dismissed entirely. I wonder what those people would consider to be sufficient? It does not seem like there is any point to a public apology. Y…

I was also struck with commenter’s swift label of her apology a “non-apology.” I’ve seen this on Twitter and elsewhere. It’s basically a proxy for “I don’t think you’ve suffered enough to be forgiven.” And that strikes me as honestly a little bit terrifying.

I think that this is an authentic apology. However, non-apologies are common. I think the Wikipedia page does a good job of explaining the difference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

Re: I'm sorry

#83

Post by sillysaurusx »

burnished wrote: post #57

What is with the comments calling this a non-appology? Do they need a hair shirt to make sure the sinners really suffer? Hyperbole aside its kind of jarring reading a frank apology and ownership of actions (what they did, how it impacted others, why it was bad) that then gets dismissed entirely. I wonder what those people would consider to be sufficient? It does not seem like there is any point to a public apology. Y…

I was ready to agree with you. And then I read https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/38

And then I realized: her apology here isn’t addressing the root concerns. But it’s addressing everything she has authority to address. Therefore, it’s the best apology possible, but people may be upset because e.g. her merging a PR without discussion is perhaps less anxiety-inducing than the idea that your GitHub repo can be moved without warning to a separate enterprise account (if I’m reading this correctly).

I assume she can’t address the latter, since it’s unrelated to her. But she quite thoroughly addressed the former — which is great! — but perhaps she should have distanced herself in her apology from the other happenings that people have brought up.

I don’t know. It was just sort of shocking to read “they transferred my GitHub repo without warning” without an immediate “crap, sorry! We’ve reverted that” reply. I assume I’m missing lots of context though.

Re: I'm sorry

#84

Post by jsd1982 »

It seems to me that there is a valid apology present in two paragraphs:

> [...] I made a mistake this last week when I made a PR and merged it to a project without discussion. [...] I overstepped. I failed to consider how the interaction would look through the lens of my current role. [...] this was a mistake. I sincerely apologize.

> To recap, I’m sorry about the PR I made and merged on the ReactiveUI Splat repo. That was a mistake. [...] On behalf of myself as the Executive Director, past and current boards, I’m sorry that we’ve created an environment where maintainers are surprised by their relationship with the .NET Foundation. It will be my and the new board’s number one priority to fix that.

How does one label this as a "non-apology"? Mistakes were acknowledged and corrected; actions were regretted and improvements are identified. Shouldn't that be enough?

Re: I'm sorry

#85

Post by rectang »

Macha wrote: post #63
markphip wrote: post #30

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 t…

Compare the Linux foundation's treatment of projects: Node: Neither the OpenJS foundation, nor its parent the Linux foundation claims owner ship of Node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE Linux: No copyright assignment, just a compatible license required: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... The CNCF and the kubernetes system does do a CLA, so it's not a concept the Linux f…

The .NET Foundation does not require copyright assignment.

https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/foundation/blob/master/...

The CLA only grants a copyright license.

EDIT: Apparently the .NET Foundation has an additional copyright assignment track. Their documentation is inconsistent and not up-to-date. This is deeply unfortunate and certain to cause grief.

> 5. Licenses.

> a. Copyright License. You grant .NET Foundation, and those who receive the Submission directly or indirectly from .NET Foundation, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license in the Submission to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third parties.

What appears to be at issue is administrative control over the Github project / organization.

Re: I'm sorry

#86

Post by sneak »

haswell wrote: post #78
burnished wrote: post #57

What is with the comments calling this a non-appology? Do they need a hair shirt to make sure the sinners really suffer? Hyperbole aside its kind of jarring reading a frank apology and ownership of actions (what they did, how it impacted others, why it was bad) that then gets dismissed entirely. I wonder what those people would consider to be sufficient? It does not seem like there is any point to a public apology. Y…

If you read the entire post, it quickly becomes apparent why people are reacting poorly. The opening paragraph is an apology. Other parts of the post undo any goodwill that might have been garnered from the apology itself. One example: > There is a pattern that needs to be resolved. Projects might not fully understand what joining the .NET Foundation means. We share a checklist with project maintainers on project cha…

The .NET Foundation is just Microsoft money trying to pretend that Microsoft isn't for-profit or pro-proprietary-software. Microsoft only tolerates open source insofar as it doesn't impede any opportunities Microsoft has for increasing Microsoft revenue. When dealing with Microsoft puppets such as the .NET Foundation, one must always remember that all of this pro-open-source project stuff is pretense and subterfuge to maximize Microsoft profits, not to enrich the open source world.

The person (affiliated with the .NET Foundation) giving this apology is on the Microsoft concentration-camp-money payroll. They are being paid to do things that will ultimately result in the sale of more proprietary Microsoft software and services.

Don't get it twisted. These FOSS project maintainers were fools to get in bed with the enemy.

Re: I'm sorry

#87

Post by MereInterest »

initplus wrote: post #68
Macha wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare the Linux foundation's treatment of projects: Node: Neither the OpenJS foundation, nor its parent the Linux foundation claims owner ship of Node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE Linux: No copyright assignment, just a compatible license required: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... The CNCF and the kubernetes system does do a CLA, so it's not a concept the Linux f…

Others in the space do ask for copyright assignment though, eg. FSF.

If I recall correctly, that was because it was legally uncertain whether a copyright infringement case could be brought by an entity other than the copyright holder in the case of GPL violations. Since then, lawsuits to ensure GPL compliance haven't really materialized, since the threat of lawsuits tends to be sufficient, so assignment of copyright hasn't been necessary for other similar foundations.

Intent also matters, and I would trust the FSF much more than I would trust a Microsoft-based foundation.

Re: I'm sorry

#88

Post by ed_elliott_asc »

burnished wrote: post #57

What is with the comments calling this a non-appology? Do they need a hair shirt to make sure the sinners really suffer? Hyperbole aside its kind of jarring reading a frank apology and ownership of actions (what they did, how it impacted others, why it was bad) that then gets dismissed entirely. I wonder what those people would consider to be sufficient? It does not seem like there is any point to a public apology. Y…

I don’t understand why people get so angry about this sort of thing, when I saw on Twitter that someone was upset because they had been migrated to GitHub enterprise my immediate reaction was to think that Microsoft did it to give them a better experience rather for some nefarious secret plan.

There is no law to say that people have to give their projects to the DNF, there is no law that says people have to use those projects and can’t start their own projects - join it if you want, don’t join if you don’t want.

Re: I'm sorry

#89

Post by satisfice »

I don’t know enough about this to comment, except to say, gee, isn’t the social and business life of human adults complicated?

Yes it is. It is complicated. How strange, then, that so many people seem to jump with both feet into complicated shared ownership arrangements with near strangers— leading to the absurdity of public messages flying around instead keeping these communications private to the specific people who understand them?

Why am I even seeing this shit? That is auto-fail right there.

Re: I'm sorry

#90

Post by sillysaurusx »

sneak wrote: post #86
haswell wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the entire post, it quickly becomes apparent why people are reacting poorly. The opening paragraph is an apology. Other parts of the post undo any goodwill that might have been garnered from the apology itself. One example: > There is a pattern that needs to be resolved. Projects might not fully understand what joining the .NET Foundation means. We share a checklist with project maintainers on project cha…

The .NET Foundation is just Microsoft money trying to pretend that Microsoft isn't for-profit or pro-proprietary-software. Microsoft only tolerates open source insofar as it doesn't impede any opportunities Microsoft has for increasing Microsoft revenue. When dealing with Microsoft puppets such as the .NET Foundation, one must always remember that all of this pro-open-source project stuff is pretense and subterfuge t…

(While I applaud your energy, I wanted to gently point out that the labels might not be too productive. You might be right, or you might not, but given Microsoft’s recent (very positive IMO) open source contributions, well… it just seemed a little unfair that your labels discounted it entirely. That said, perhaps “you’re not wrong” applies. I don’t know.)
Post reply on HN