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

141–150 of 277 posts

Re: I'm sorry

#141

Post by eyelidlessness »

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 opening paragraph is an apology. Other parts of the post undo any goodwill that might have been garnered from the apology itself.

This is also recognizable as “I’m sorry, but” or “I’m sorry it made you feel that way”. Both of which have meaningful applications in very specific circumstances but neither of which belong in a public apology.

Re: I'm sorry

#142

Post by drekipus »

ziml77 wrote: post #114

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?

>Did they get caught trying to start the extinguish phase of EEE?

Effectively, yes, and a bunch of people are surprised about it.

Re: I'm sorry

#143

Post by sundvor »

katbyte wrote: post #118
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…

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

Thanks! Coming in to this cold: Starting with reading the apology and the first few comments on that page, then back here down to yours. This paints a totally different picture to the impressions I got from the preceding steps; I can fully understand the upset.

Re: I'm sorry

#144

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: I'm sorry

#145

Post by bingo-bongo »

ziml77 wrote: post #114

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?

The executive director of the .NET Foundation force merged a PR on a project, instead of following project guidelines.

The incident snowballed into other projects discovering they have been moved to the .NET Foundations Github Enterprise account without their knowledge.

And even more projects joining the snowball with “we were told the Foundation were just there to help us, not take over project ownership”

And now there is a huge snowball with a lot of projects and people stuck inside.

Re: I'm sorry

#146

Post by [deleted] »

jsd1982 wrote: post #84

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. Th…

[deleted]

Re: I'm sorry

#147

Post by listless »

Aeolun wrote: post #126
temp8964 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> '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…’

Unless the situation is nuanced. Which is pretty much all the time.

“Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance.”

Re: I'm sorry

#148

Post by eyelidlessness »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #141
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 opening paragraph is an apology. Other parts of the post undo any goodwill that might have been garnered from the apology itself. This is also recognizable as “I’m sorry, but” or “I’m sorry it made you feel that way”. Both of which have meaningful applications in very specific circumstances but neither of which belong in a public apology.

To people who actually want to better learn to apologize: find a way to apologize sincerely, without inserting yourself into the space receiving the apology, then take your “but” and apply what you learned from the experience to it. Your “but” matters to you, it might be important, it doesn’t matter to the person or people you harmed.

Re: I'm sorry

#149

Post by lostmsu »

sph wrote: post #41
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

TL;DR; .NET Foundation moved all member projects to be a suborg of .NET Foundation without asking maintainers.

For example, I am a maintainer of https://github.com/pythonnet/. If you follow that link, you will see "Part of .NET Foundation" which is a GitHub Enterprise Organization.

AFAIU, They could do that because when joining projects needed to add dnfadmin@github bot, that was supposed to perform some utility tasks such as enforcing CLAs.

Re: I'm sorry

#150

Post by lostmsu »

Aaronontheweb wrote: post #24

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

The GitHub Enterprise organization thing poses a request to GitHub: is there an audit trail for this kind of operations (moving organization to be a part of another org)? If there's none yet, the need is apparent.
Post reply on HN