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

111–120 of 277 posts

Re: I'm sorry

#111

Post by rectang »

Macha wrote: post #93
rectang wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Foundat…

From the linked post > It is also clear that the .NET Foundation project governance model is not well understood. Project maintainers sign an agreement that either assigns or contributes their project to the .NET Foundation. That’s the point at which project ownership changes. We’ll post another document on that this week as well. This apology claims project ownership was assigned and the parent poster claims that th…

> "either assigns or contributes"

That wording (from the post) is unfortunate because it is misleading, but that doesn't mean we should continue to spread the misinterpretation. Please stop conflating "project ownership" with "copyright assignment".

> the CLAs shared by the contributors differ from the sample one you have linked.

I got that PDF by going to https://cla.dotnetfoundation.org/ and then clicking through the link to the CLA.

In response to your challenge, I subsequently went through the first step of the project contribution process at https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit and (after signing into Github) wound up at a page which includes the following:

> *Contribution Model.* Under the .NET Foundation contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants .NET Foundation a broad license to the project’s code and other intellectual property. The project also confirms that the project’s submissions to .NET Foundation are its own original work (there are also instructions for any third party materials that might be included).

EDIT: I'm incorrect. There is apparently an additional copyright assignment track. https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit#project-applica... The DNF's documentation is inconsistent and not up-to-date.

Re: I'm sorry

#112

Post by temp8964 »

satisfice wrote: post #89

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 wh…

This sh8t is part of modern day by day outrage campaign. The new normal? You would think GitHub is where rational people get together. Apparently not.

Remember the Linux Foundation ban the whole university bc of ...?

This whole sh8t is spreading like a disease from college campus to social media to workplace to everywhere.

https://www.thecoddling.com/

Re: I'm sorry

#113

Post by sva_ »

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.

Forgiveness seems to be a somewhat old tradition that slowly goes out of fashion. I find that very regrettable, as forgiveness is the thing that enables the other one to admit their mistake and then improve upon it, which I think is one of the pillars of our society.

Re: I'm sorry

#114

Post by ziml77 »

Does anyone have a good summary of what happened here? I'm not really following what the foundation did wrong. Did Microsoft do something underhanded? Did they get caught trying to start the extinguish phase of EEE?

Re: I'm sorry

#115

Post by mithr »

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 think this is actually a result of this post being a very savvy PR move. The title and beginning of the post make it seem like she's personally apologizing for merging a piece of code. That's all good and well -- I think her apology for that part is mostly fine. And at a casual read for a person who's just peeking in, and hasn't read the other post on that board for context, that's all it appears to be.

But (as other folks have mentioned) most of the maintainers are commenting on the rest of the post, which sort of hides behind that apology. The rest of the post addresses the real outrage that's been growing in that community -- not due to a bad merge, which is rude but somewhat understandable as a mistake, but due to the .NET Foundation essentially overstepping what the project maintainers understand as the DNF's role and authority.

That part is a complete non-apology, where the executive director of the DNF is basically saying "we're so sorry that you didn't properly understand that we could do this, we'll fix that by publishing a clearer document", and "we're so sorry that you didn't know we could just move you to our enterprise account, we'll communicate better next time". Both of these are spun as communication issues, whereas in reality they're authority issues -- the maintainers don't think the DNF should be able to just decide to do that, on its own, regardless of how well it's communicated.

Re: I'm sorry

#116

Post by kylemh »

wk_end wrote: post #77
bmy78 wrote: post #69

Actions speak louder than words. If she were truly sorry, she would’ve reverted the PR and have it go through the normal process. Instead she wrote a really long message about how the .NET Foundation owns your project.

The commit was reverted (see https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/779 )

Yes, but the author wasn't the one that reverted it.

Re: I'm sorry

#117

Post by cortesoft »

sneak wrote: post #53
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #24

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

It's so ridiculously annoying when an apology or PR statement assumes complete and total familiarity with the existing goings-on. There's even a whole language of euphemism around it. "Recent events involving the community", et c. So lame!

Umm the people who she is apologizing to know why she is apologizing... I don't think it is super important to educate the peanut gallery on the issue... if you don't know what the apology is for, the apology doesn't really matter to you.

Re: I'm sorry

#118

Post by katbyte »

snapdaddy wrote: post #94
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…

I did not get that at all. To me it sounds like she is coming clean with what she sees as the issues surrounding the project, including poor communication. I read that as, 'another problem we've seen is that people are unclear what it means to become a member of our organisation so we are working towards improving that.' I initially read her apology and thought it was likely a response to an overblown situation that…

Wasn’t just opening a pr and merging it, it was opening a pr, having a maintainer ask her to clarify/follow process, close pr, her reopen it, TWICE and then finally just merge it dismissing the maintainer

https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778

Re: I'm sorry

#119

Post by temp8964 »

snapdaddy wrote: post #94
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…

I did not get that at all. To me it sounds like she is coming clean with what she sees as the issues surrounding the project, including poor communication. I read that as, 'another problem we've seen is that people are unclear what it means to become a member of our organisation so we are working towards improving that.' I initially read her apology and thought it was likely a response to an overblown situation that…

> 'oh yeah, sorry. I'll try not to do it again. My bad.'

This definitely should be sufficient. But hey, we are not living in that time anymore.

Public condemnation is the new normal. And a response with public self-condemnation is expected from the mob. "I'm sorry" and "I apologize" is no longer sufficient. You need to go deeper and expose the evil in your soul, and condemn your self and your conspirators, and devote you will be a new person. You might get a chance.

Re: I'm sorry

#120

Post by mithr »

ed_elliott_asc wrote: post #88
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…

I believe the issue is that the maintainers were explicitly told that they weren't "giving" their projects to the DNF, but rather that the DNF was there to support them, while the maintainers retain complete control. So the DNF is saying "we're sorry you misunderstood", and the maintainers are saying "we didn't misunderstand, you're not allowed do that".

It's an ownership issue rather than a benefits issue -- if you joined a homeowner's association in order to have a say in how things work in your neighborhood, and then got back from vacation and discovered they completely redid your yard while you were away, without telling you about it or asking your permission, you'd be pretty mad even if the yard ended up being nice.

Post reply on HN