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

151–160 of 277 posts

Re: I'm sorry

#151

Post by katbyte »

snapdaddy wrote: post #104
llacb47 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, as I thought - If I were the maintainer of that project I would have had no issue with her merging that. But I also understand why PRs exist and process, so I would have said, 'yeah, cool, just don't do it again. Nothing to see here, move along.'

one thing to just merge it, but another entirely to reopen it twice disregarding what the maintainer has asked of you before forcing it. At the very least disrespectful and arrogant.

Re: I'm sorry

#152

Post by avsteele »

I am not versed in all the details here, but it is clear there is a diverge of expectations between MS and some of the repo owners. This is just part of business. Legal agreements and projects are complicated. Not everything is going to be spelled out. In a good business relationship you acknowledge this and work in good faith to resolve differences when they occur.

However, top comments make clear there is a dire need for professional communications training among these programmers. There is entirely too much emotion on display here. Stuff like this:

   While I appreciate that this must have been hard to write, this is a total non-apology and just about meets the incredibly low expectations I and others had for the .NET Foundation's public statement.
.. and the other comments like it, are not productive. There is a difference in expectations, so resolve it by making offers to MS for proposed changes. Ultimately there is a negotiated settlement or you walk. That's it. Don't bring emotions into it.

Re: I'm sorry

#153

Post by katbyte »

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?

the maintainer closed the PR twice, asking for her to follow the process before she reopened and merged it. Then reverted it.

the apology is because it's not just about this PR. Among other things there is moving a number of projects into the foundations enterprise gh org without any warning/discussion using the admin account they forced upon/bullied project orgs into adding. This has affected some in a negative way already.

Re: I'm sorry

#154

Post by katbyte »

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.

an apology is more than just saying "i'm sorry". Anyone can say "i'm sorry" - not everyone can/will/or does apologize.

Re: I'm sorry

#155

Post by aae42 »

f00zz wrote: post #80

That's a lot of words to apologize for something that could be fixed with a force push

I couldn't help but think the same...

You're sorry? Ok, revert it then.

Re: I'm sorry

#156

Post by drfxyjhdyfrhgc »

avsteele wrote: post #152

I am not versed in all the details here, but it is clear there is a diverge of expectations between MS and some of the repo owners. This is just part of business. Legal agreements and projects are complicated. Not everything is going to be spelled out. In a good business relationship you acknowledge this and work in good faith to resolve differences when they occur. However, top comments make clear there is a dire ne…

Did you look at the Contribution License Agreement? It appears that the issue at hand was in fact "spelled out". Repo owners aren't unreasonable to interpret this action as bad faith. I would agree that their message would be better communicated with a more amicable tone.

Re: I'm sorry

#157

Post by dclowd9901 »

drfxyjhdyfrhgc wrote: post #156
avsteele wrote: post #152

I am not versed in all the details here, but it is clear there is a diverge of expectations between MS and some of the repo owners. This is just part of business. Legal agreements and projects are complicated. Not everything is going to be spelled out. In a good business relationship you acknowledge this and work in good faith to resolve differences when they occur. However, top comments make clear there is a dire ne…

Did you look at the Contribution License Agreement? It appears that the issue at hand was in fact "spelled out". Repo owners aren't unreasonable to interpret this action as bad faith. I would agree that their message would be better communicated with a more amicable tone.

> I would agree that their message would be better communicated with a more amicable tone.

This was entirely GP's point.

Re: I'm sorry

#159

Post by dclowd9901 »

heavyset_go wrote: post #102
armchairhacker wrote: post #99

This whole situation is toxic. She literally made a 1-line change in a configuration file with basically no downsides. She also repeatedly re-opened and then merged the PR despite the other guy telling her to follow the format and wait for a review. Which she shouldn't have done. But then everyone started bashing her and .NET for other (similarly small) things and extrapolating that. Then there's this 1000 legalese w…

Please read this discussion[1]. The issue goes far beyond a pull request. Project maintainers had their projects moved from their public GitHub accounts to the DNF's GitHub Enterprise account without notice. Some maintainers only found out about the transfers of their projects because of this[1] discussion. [1] https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/38

In practice, how does such a change actually affect the project owners? Because from all the kerfuffle, I haven't seen a single legitimate grievance or issue this actually caused the owners. In fact, one of them even says (paraphrased) "If you had just waited for review, there probably wouldn't have been any issue."

This _does_ feel very toxic and unnecessary.

Re: I'm sorry

#160

Post by sorenjan »

Aaronontheweb wrote: post #24

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

So it seems that the root of the whole mess is that the .NET Foundation demands that every project lets a centralized and anonymous committee enforce their code of conduct by banning users from all member projects.

https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/174

https://dotnetfoundation.org/about/code-of-conduct

Post reply on HN