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

121–130 of 277 posts

Re: I'm sorry

#121

Post by Macha »

rectang wrote: post #111
Macha wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> 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".

What else is there to own in an open source project? The trademarks? How many of these projects even have trademarks?

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

This is the document that the .NET foundation requires new contributors to projects owned by the .NET foundation to sign. Ok. But it's not the document that the owners of these projects signed as part of opening relations with the foundation, at least by the project owners claims and provided screenshot. The .NET foundation could plaster this document on their home page, but it doesn't change that the project authors are providing a different document that they claim is the one they signed.

The document that the project authors claim to have signed includes this modified intro:

> Project means the projects owned or managed by Contributor and listed below that is assigned to the .NET foundation hereunder.

If this is assigning copyright to the .NET foundation, is it bad faith to not make that clearer? Yes. Is it a reason not to do business with the .NET foundation? Yes. Does the fact that the later sections of the document discuss copyright licenses make their claim less credible? Yes. But I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to pass judgement on if it does what the .NET foundation claims, merely discuss the point that the foundation now claims it does so, and other posters have claimed that kind of assignment is needed for a foundation to operate.

Please stop attacking me for trying to discuss the situation without using your preferred description exactly. I'm trying to present both sides claims in a discussion that it is not required for the .NET to do what they claim based on the examples of other foundations which have managed without such a step.

Re: I'm sorry

#122

Post by initplus »

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…

It seems the issue hinges on: did a copyright assignment take place in order for projects to join the .NET foundation? It currently seems unclear whether this is the case or not.

Foundation seems of the opinion that assignment did occur, but individual projects differ on whether they think they have assigned copyright or not. There are legitimate reasons for copyright assignment but all contributors need to have the same understanding of whether a copyright assignment applies or not. If projects have not had individual contributors agreeing to a copyright assignment up to now, then it's not possible for a project to assign copyright to the .NET foundation without the consent of every contributor. Which is likely a tricky proposition...

Re: I'm sorry

#123

Post by donw »

temp8964 wrote: post #119
snapdaddy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The promise is "apologize and this will all go away". That's a lie. Never does. Depending on where you work, you may or may not be totally screwed, but apologizing when you have done nothing wrong changes bupkis.

Why give the bullies what they want? Stand your ground:

- You can cordially invite the mob to go fuck itself.

Or, for a less confrontational approach:

- You can ignore the mob and proceed as normal for a few months until they find somebody else to hate.

It's going to be a ride either way, but these bullying tactics work only because people cave. It's a trial by fire. The people that don't tend to end up more successful afterwards, and with the added benefit of knowing who their true friends really are.

A couple of important points:

- You need to commit. If you later on back down, you are done like a cheap steak. The bullies know they own you at that point. Yes, this means you might be fired, or kicked out of your university. Might get your house torched. You're going to lose "friends". Improvise, adapt, and overcome.

- These bullies want to provoke you to violence on their terms. Don't. Especially if you're the fighting type: don't take that bait. Pretty sure Sun Tzu didn't write, "Fight precisely when the enemy wants to battle."

Re: I'm sorry

#124

Post by jonathankoren »

haswell wrote: post #110
snapdaddy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.' The implication though is that becoming a member of the organization allows for actions like the one she took. I do think owning up to "maybe these agreements aren't clear enough" is good, but that then seems inextricably linked to "I was allowed to d…

I don't know why there would be confusion about what she's apologizing for. She explicitly stated what the mistake was.

> I shouldn't have merged this PR without explicit sign-off from the other maintainers, because it's disrespectful and rude not to follow the project’s process.

Re: I'm sorry

#125

Post by yifanl »

sva_ wrote: post #113
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.

Not to armchair, but I think it's a reaction to the very liberal interpretation of the phrase "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" that seemingly every entity with authority has used in almost any community.

Like me personally, I'm just about out of forgiveness to give, it's too often that the entity in question goes and skips asking permission a second time after they apologize for the first time.

Though in this specific case, the infraction seems really so minor that I'd happily live and let live.

Re: I'm sorry

#126

Post by Aeolun »

temp8964 wrote: post #119
snapdaddy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The problem is that an apology should not contain a ‘but…’

Re: I'm sorry

#127

Post by wk_end »

kylemh wrote: post #116
wk_end wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

It was (rightly) reverted almost immediately after it was first committed, a week ago. I wouldn't expect the author of this apology - posted today - to have instantaneously realized the error of their ways and ever had the chance to do the revert themselves, and I don't think that reflects on whether the apology is sincere or not.

Re: I'm sorry

#128

Post by haswell »

jonathankoren wrote: post #124
haswell wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.' The implication though is that becoming a member of the organization allows for actions like the one she took. I do think owning up to "maybe these agreements aren't clear enough" is good, but that then seems inextricably linked to "I was allowed to d…

I don't know why there would be confusion about what she's apologizing for. She explicitly stated what the mistake was. > I shouldn't have merged this PR without explicit sign-off from the other maintainers, because it's disrespectful and rude not to follow the project’s process.

But when that is followed by an explanation outlining why they’re allowed to do what they did, and going forward they’ll try to make that more clear, how is one supposed to interpret the original apology and its intent?

The apology and the legal overview do not coexist well.

Re: I'm sorry

#129

Post by Aeolun »

This whole thing just screams clusterfuck to me.

Don’t trust Microsoft or give anyone admin access to your repos if you won’t want them to do bad shit.

I guess they technically own Github, so don’t use that if you don’t trust them either.

Re: I'm sorry

#130

Post by nyanpasu64 »

Macha wrote: post #121
rectang wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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 t…

> 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". What else is there to own in an open source project? The trademarks? How many of these projects even have trademarks? > I got that PDF by going to https://cla.dotnetfoundation.org/ and then clicking thr…

> What else is there to own in an open source project?

Control over the code repository, maintainership, and the ability to push to master/main.

Post reply on HN