6 ms·

I think MSFT needs to try harder at their customer service. Their first response from a human was hard rejection response. lzybkr wrote "We are rejecting this

I think MSFT needs to try harder at their customer service. Their first response from a human was hard rejection response. lzybkr wrote "We are rejecting this PR as it introduces "Unacceptable Changes", see our breaking change contract." It is not, "let's investigate it where what the problem is and get back to you some feedback.".

tomswartz07 10y ago
To be fair, a lot of other MSFT-ers jumped in after the fact and pulled the reigns a bit. I bet it was just unfortunate that some neckbeardy level 1 rep was the first to comment on it. I agree, however, that they should work on their inital responses.
emodendroket 10y ago
They don't even have an obligation to consider outside PRs, let alone provide a reason. It's rather a stretch to say people who want to change the behavior of PowerShell are their main customers.
- nkassis 10y ago
  Depends what main customers you are thinking off. For this product in particular, it seems these users might be potential customers of powershell. Each product has it's own main customers.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    The customers who pay money.
    - JeffreySnover 10y ago
      FYI - we don't charge for PowerShell. Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        That was exactly part of my point: "main customers" are people who pay to Microsoft, e.g. for Windows licenses.
craigcabrey 10y ago
Agreed. The irony here is their first human response sounded more robotic than the initial CLA bot response.
andyjohnson0 10y ago
lzybkr is a developer on the poweshell team, and who I would guess is reacting according to standard operating procedure. Then jpsnover, who is a Technical Fellow (a senior position) gets involved and makes the call to start the RFC process. This seems like a reasonable escalation process to me. lzybkr may well not have the authority to commit to an investigation/fix.
hota_mazi 10y ago
> I think MSFT needs to try harder at their customer service. Their first response from a human was hard rejection response All open source projects (on github and everywhere else) that require a contributor agreement do the same thing (e.g. Android). They usually have bots that auto close pull requests when the person hasn't signed the agreement first. It's an unfortunate but necessary requirement for some projects. There's no malice, just bureaucracy.
- dpark 10y ago
  He wasn't talking about the attribution bot (which did not actually reject the change). He was talking about the first human response from lzybkr, which was a "no, it's a breaking change".
JeffreySnover 10y ago
Fair feedback - we are in learning mode. Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
justin66 10y ago
> I think MSFT needs to try harder at their customer service. You don't think any of the particularly spazzy responders on that github thread are really Microsoft customers, do you?
- iaw 10y ago
  They are people that work at company's that have the option of buying Microsoft products that will discourage coworkers from buying Microsoft products...

tomswartz07 10y ago

To be fair, a lot of other MSFT-ers jumped in after the fact and pulled the reigns a bit. I bet it was just unfortunate that some neckbeardy level 1 rep was the first to comment on it. I agree, however, that they should work on their inital responses.

emodendroket 10y ago

They don't even have an obligation to consider outside PRs, let alone provide a reason. It's rather a stretch to say people who want to change the behavior of PowerShell are their main customers.

nkassis 10y ago
Depends what main customers you are thinking off. For this product in particular, it seems these users might be potential customers of powershell. Each product has it's own main customers.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  The customers who pay money.
  - JeffreySnover 10y ago
    FYI - we don't charge for PowerShell. Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      That was exactly part of my point: "main customers" are people who pay to Microsoft, e.g. for Windows licenses.

craigcabrey 10y ago

Agreed. The irony here is their first human response sounded more robotic than the initial CLA bot response.

andyjohnson0 10y ago

lzybkr is a developer on the poweshell team, and who I would guess is reacting according to standard operating procedure. Then jpsnover, who is a Technical Fellow (a senior position) gets involved and makes the call to start the RFC process. This seems like a reasonable escalation process to me. lzybkr may well not have the authority to commit to an investigation/fix.

hota_mazi 10y ago

> I think MSFT needs to try harder at their customer service. Their first response from a human was hard rejection response All open source projects (on github and everywhere else) that require a contributor agreement do the same thing (e.g. Android). They usually have bots that auto close pull requests when the person hasn't signed the agreement first. It's an unfortunate but necessary requirement for some projects. There's no malice, just bureaucracy.

dpark 10y ago
He wasn't talking about the attribution bot (which did not actually reject the change). He was talking about the first human response from lzybkr, which was a "no, it's a breaking change".

JeffreySnover 10y ago

Fair feedback - we are in learning mode. Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]

justin66 10y ago

> I think MSFT needs to try harder at their customer service. You don't think any of the particularly spazzy responders on that github thread are really Microsoft customers, do you?

iaw 10y ago
They are people that work at company's that have the option of buying Microsoft products that will discourage coworkers from buying Microsoft products...