Some context would be awesome. Is anybody here privy to the events surrounding this apology?
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.
I'm sorry
41–50 of 277 posts
Re: I'm sorry
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember the old adage - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Hanlon's Razor, I believe it was. And here, by "stupidity," I just mean the author didn't think about that. Too often people are willing to attribute sinister meaning to what, in reality, was just a mistake.
Assuming good intentions is a good way to get abused by people exploiting the fact that you assume good intentions. The person in question did a PR, someone informed her that she should follow the rules, she didn't, merged her PR, more people complained. Right now the PR is still merged. She wrote that whole text, and the PR is still merged. Since I can't read people's mind, a good trick that I learned is to derive i…
> Assuming good intentions is a good way to get abused by people exploiting the fact that you assume good intentions.
And assuming bad intentions is a good way to live a miserable unhappy life.
Re: I'm sorry
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did not see any indication that she was asked to revert the PR. It seemed like it was more just about that she felt it was OK to bypass the policy.
And, regardless of whether this particular PR Is reverted or not, whether there's anything to prevent her or any other board member from doing this again.
It does not seem like she did it as a Board member, she did it because she felt like she was still an Active Maintainer of that project. It seems like the project feels like even if she is still a Maintainer she still was wrong to merge without discussion.
Re: I'm sorry
#44No post body was provided.
Re: I'm sorry
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I wanted to interpret this in a paranoiac way, I would say that's because the author of the PR isn't apologetic at all, and in fact is quite fine with forcing a PR through the maintainers without their consent.
Remember the old adage - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Hanlon's Razor, I believe it was. And here, by "stupidity," I just mean the author didn't think about that. Too often people are willing to attribute sinister meaning to what, in reality, was just a mistake.
I would not say people are stupid. We should never assume we know why someone did something and then take action based on that assumption.
When someone cuts you off in traffic, for example, they probably did not see you or are late for an important event or their wife is in the emergency room having a baby. It probably was not personal or malicious.
Re: I'm sorry
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Assuming good intentions is a good way to get abused by people exploiting the fact that you assume good intentions. The person in question did a PR, someone informed her that she should follow the rules, she didn't, merged her PR, more people complained. Right now the PR is still merged. She wrote that whole text, and the PR is still merged. Since I can't read people's mind, a good trick that I learned is to derive i…
> Assuming good intentions is a good way to get abused by people exploiting the fact that you assume good intentions. And assuming bad intentions is a good way to live a miserable unhappy life.
Yes, which is why I think deriving intentions from actions is useful in a lot of cases.
Re: I'm sorry
#47holy fuck, does every little mistake need a solemn 4000 word apology these days? that’s already not a world i want to live in, but then even the apology gets shit on and invalidated. people need to take everything much less seriously, especially shit that happens on the internet. this whole thing should have been able to be a new PR with “sorry about the merge before, i screwed up and it won’t happen again” at the en…
welcome to open source, it’s just this thread over and over again every day
Re: I'm sorry
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I wanted to interpret this in a paranoiac way, I would say that's because the author of the PR isn't apologetic at all, and in fact is quite fine with forcing a PR through the maintainers without their consent.
Remember the old adage - never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Hanlon's Razor, I believe it was. And here, by "stupidity," I just mean the author didn't think about that. Too often people are willing to attribute sinister meaning to what, in reality, was just a mistake.
Hanlon's razor is a great principle to apply to your personal relationships, but you'll make yourself a mark if you start applying it to the machinations of trillion dollar companies.
Re: I'm sorry
#49Earlier 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.
Allegedly some actions required .net foundation to have admin access to projects under their umbrella. The foundation then changed the copyright notices to dotnetfoundation instead of the actual owners.
I didn't understand the drama above the comments entirely, though.
Re: I'm sorry
#50Anyone have a link to the PR in question?
https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778