211–220 of 277 posts
I don't know anything about the .NET Foundation or much about this particular situation, but I know a little about open source governance. It appears that Novotny believed she was acting in her capacity as a (long-dormant) maintainer of the project when she merged the PR in question. It was clearly wrong to do so without following the process set down by the other maintainers, and she was right to apologise. However,…
You can't apologize and at the same time minimize the thing you actually did. It's pretty much like ending your apology with a "but". And this (not really) apology is a big "but".
More to the point though, this apology attempt made it worse. It starts off with a dishonest apology, and then goes into a big policy and contract debate.
Why would you conflate the two? Whatever point you're then trying to make about policy and ownership is tainted by both the personal misstep (I call it that unsarcastically) and by the insincere apology.
It's needlessly ineffective.
1. It makes your apology sound like "I'm sorry, but I'm the dictator here" 2. It starts you off from a position of "I was wrong, admit I was wrong, but here's how actually I'm right"
It's going to be hard convincing anyone if you start from a position of being wrong. And not just wrong but also really rude.
It seems to me that it would be much more effective to just apologize for the obvious process mis-step and arrogant rudeness (it happens to the best of us), and let that sink in. And then start a new conversation about policy.
Whoever raises "yeah, well weren't you the one who went around PR policies?" in that thread will be the unproductive one, and it won't go anywhere.
As-is the policy points can't be taken at face value.
"Sorry I opened a PR and merged it without discussion" is not an honest description of what happened ( https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778 ), and therefore the apology seems very insincere. You can't apologize and at the same time minimize the thing you actually did. It's pretty much like ending your apology with a "but". And this (not really) apology is a big "but". More to the point though, this apology at…
"Sorry I opened a PR and merged it without discussion" is not an honest description of what happened ( https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778 ), and therefore the apology seems very insincere. You can't apologize and at the same time minimize the thing you actually did. It's pretty much like ending your apology with a "but". And this (not really) apology is a big "but". More to the point though, this apology at…
> Wow great conversation! Let's lock it to contributors just for a laugh and not because someone on Twitter just unhelpfully sent 27.3k Looky-Loos over to drop their $0.02 on my repo
> @reactiveui reactiveui locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators 6 days ago
Either I'm out of touch (quite probable) or sarcasm doesn't translate too well, since... I think they're unhappy with someone tweeting a link to this PR, but it also seems unclear why discussion was shut down.
"Sorry I opened a PR and merged it without discussion" is not an honest description of what happened ( https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778 ), and therefore the apology seems very insincere. You can't apologize and at the same time minimize the thing you actually did. It's pretty much like ending your apology with a "but". And this (not really) apology is a big "but". More to the point though, this apology at…
If this is not desired behavior it should be enforced by requiring a reviewer to sign off on the changes before merging. By not requiring this it means it is okay for pull requests to be merged without discussion, even if it is a rare occurrence. This is one of those occurrences.
And after being asked twice by another maintainer (one of the two current maintainers (none of which are her), as I read it) to please follow the procedures, she tells him to fuck off and overrides him.
And after all that she does actually write something intended to look like an apology. So what does that mean? Either she disagrees with you, and indeed she should have followed procedures, or all she's apologizing for is "sorry you got so upset", which more of a taunt than an apology.
No, actually. Contrary to what cryptocurrency people would have you believe, there are other and more effective ways to prevent undesirable behaviour than technical means, for the vast majority of behaviour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Sorry I opened a PR and merged it without discussion" is not an honest description of what happened ( https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778 ), and therefore the apology seems very insincere. You can't apologize and at the same time minimize the thing you actually did. It's pretty much like ending your apology with a "but". And this (not really) apology is a big "but". More to the point though, this apology at…
The ending of that was so unexpected: > Wow great conversation! Let's lock it to contributors just for a laugh and not because someone on Twitter just unhelpfully sent 27.3k Looky-Loos over to drop their $0.02 on my repo > @reactiveui reactiveui locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators 6 days ago Either I'm out of touch (quite probable) or sarcasm doesn't translate too well, since... I think they'…
I don't think the thread would be helped by 100 "who's here from HN?", "Congrats, you're on reddit", and such.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ending of that was so unexpected: > Wow great conversation! Let's lock it to contributors just for a laugh and not because someone on Twitter just unhelpfully sent 27.3k Looky-Loos over to drop their $0.02 on my repo > @reactiveui reactiveui locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators 6 days ago Either I'm out of touch (quite probable) or sarcasm doesn't translate too well, since... I think they'…
I think that was a good call. Most mob-comments on these things are not productive. And especially when done on the project's own infrastructure (unlike here on HN) it's like locking your normally-open door to prevent people coming into your house to berate you. Let the people upset write to their local paper, instead. I don't think the thread would be helped by 100 "who's here from HN?", "Congrats, you're on reddit"…