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

91–100 of 277 posts

Re: I'm sorry

#91

Post by cmeacham98 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #83
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…

I was ready to agree with you. And then I read https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/38 And then I realized: her apology here isn’t addressing the root concerns. But it’s addressing everything she has authority to address. Therefore, it’s the best apology possible, but people may be upset because e.g. her merging a PR without discussion is perhaps less anxiety-inducing than the idea that your GitHub r…

She says she is the "Executive Director for the .NET Foundation". I'd be extremely surprised if this role didn't allow her input into the decision to move projects to a separate enterprise account without informing the project maintainers.

Re: I'm sorry

#92

Post by heavyset_go »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #83
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…

I was ready to agree with you. And then I read https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/38 And then I realized: her apology here isn’t addressing the root concerns. But it’s addressing everything she has authority to address. Therefore, it’s the best apology possible, but people may be upset because e.g. her merging a PR without discussion is perhaps less anxiety-inducing than the idea that your GitHub r…

> e.g. her merging a PR without discussion is perhaps less anxiety-inducing than the idea that your GitHub repo can be moved without warning to a separate enterprise account (if I’m reading this correctly).

You're reading it correctly. There are several maintainers in that discussion who only found out today that their projects were moved from their public GitHub accounts to the DNF's GitHub Enterprise accounts. They weren't notified, and some of them only found out because they read the discussion you linked and decided to check the status of their projects.

As far as I'm aware, the projects haven't been transferred back to the accounts they belonged to prior to being moved to the DNF's account.

Re: I'm sorry

#93

Post by Macha »

rectang wrote: post #85
Macha wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compare the Linux foundation's treatment of projects: Node: Neither the OpenJS foundation, nor its parent the Linux foundation claims owner ship of Node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE Linux: No copyright assignment, just a compatible license required: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... The CNCF and the kubernetes system does do a CLA, so it's not a concept the Linux f…

The .NET Foundation does not require copyright assignment. https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/foundation/blob/master/... The CLA only grants a copyright license . EDIT: Apparently the .NET Foundation has an additional copyright assignment track. Their documentation is inconsistent and not up-to-date. This is deeply unfortunate and certain to cause grief. > 5. Licenses. > a. Copyright License. You grant .NET Foundat…

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 the actions taken are required for supporting the projects.

Clearly from the comments in other linked threads the project owners dispute this but the CLAs shared by the contributors differ from the sample one you have linked.

Re: I'm sorry

#94

Post by snapdaddy »

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…

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 occurs because it's on the Internet and it's much easier to assume the worst of people's intentions.

I can imagine merging a PR I made that I imagined to be obvious and fine. I probably would have just said, 'oh yeah, sorry. I'll try not to do it again. My bad.'

But then again, that's probably why I'm not the leader of the .Net foundation :-)

Re: I'm sorry

#95

Post by sjburt »

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…

> On behalf of myself as the Executive Director, past and current boards, I’m sorry that we’ve created an environment where maintainers are surprised by their relationship with the .NET Foundation. It will be my and the new board’s number one priority to fix that.

This is the non apology. It's not apologizing for the nature of the relationship that was created, it's apologizing for people being surprised by the nature of the relationship. There's an implication in the statement that the maintainers failed to understand their agreements and that's the real root of the problem.

In terms of the "fix", it's not clear whether the fix is to renegotiate the agreements, or just to make it more clear what the agreements meant (in which case, the harm is not really being addressed).

Re: I'm sorry

#96

Post by sneak »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #90
sneak wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The .NET Foundation is just Microsoft money trying to pretend that Microsoft isn't for-profit or pro-proprietary-software. Microsoft only tolerates open source insofar as it doesn't impede any opportunities Microsoft has for increasing Microsoft revenue. When dealing with Microsoft puppets such as the .NET Foundation, one must always remember that all of this pro-open-source project stuff is pretense and subterfuge t…

(While I applaud your energy, I wanted to gently point out that the labels might not be too productive. You might be right, or you might not, but given Microsoft’s recent (very positive IMO) open source contributions, well… it just seemed a little unfair that your labels discounted it entirely. That said, perhaps “you’re not wrong” applies. I don’t know.)

Microsoft doesn't contribute to open source software because open source software is good for the world. Microsoft contributes to open source software because Microsoft wants to sell more proprietary software and services to the open source world, as more and more developers live in that world.

They realized that without significant service lock-in, people would begin to abandon things like Windows (and continue to ignore things like Azure).

This is why WSL exists (so even open source people will keep buying Windows licenses), this is why VS Code exists (and, despite being open source, the most popular plugins for it are proprietary) (to provide a privileged position for GitHub integration), this is why they bought GitHub, this is why they bought NPM, this is why they paid Docker to make dockerd run on Windows, and this is why they're trying very hard to get as many people locked in to proprietary services like GitHub Actions and GitHub Issues.

This is also why they run little shell nonprofits like the .NET Foundation.

Re: I'm sorry

#97

Post by sillysaurusx »

cmeacham98 wrote: post #91
sillysaurusx wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was ready to agree with you. And then I read https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/38 And then I realized: her apology here isn’t addressing the root concerns. But it’s addressing everything she has authority to address. Therefore, it’s the best apology possible, but people may be upset because e.g. her merging a PR without discussion is perhaps less anxiety-inducing than the idea that your GitHub r…

She says she is the "Executive Director for the .NET Foundation". I'd be extremely surprised if this role didn't allow her input into the decision to move projects to a separate enterprise account without informing the project maintainers.

I was wondering about that too.

If that’s the case — and that’s a big if… I don’t think we should assume it’s true — then her apology probably failed to address the root outrage of the decision to move projects to the enterprise account without warning or consent.

They may be entitled to do this, but anyone with a patent is also entitled to enforce that patent. An enforcement decision needs to be made with great care. In this case, they end up sounding tone deaf (https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39#dis... has a bunch of justifications about why their decision makes sense, and all I can do is shake my head, even though it is technically correct).

Re: I'm sorry

#98

Post by nebulous1 »

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…

Did you read the whole post? It does start as an apology, but then it explains that she actually had every right to exert control of the project and implies the only reason people are complaining is that they didn't understand the new hierarchy they had inadvertently signed up to.

Re: I'm sorry

#99

Post by armchairhacker »

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 word apology, and then people are bashing her for the apology.

Post reply on HN