4 ms·

I'm confused why the correct course of action isn't to revert the commit, ask the author to re-open the PR for comment, and follow the process. Why the tortious

I'm confused why the correct course of action isn't to revert the commit, ask the author to re-open the PR for comment, and follow the process. Why the tortious apology?

umeshunni 5y ago
Because attention seeking...
- Afforess 5y ago
  I'm trying to assume good faith
  - bombcar 5y ago
    This reads like someone who has the ability and power to just steamroll over everything trying to pretend they don’t have that power.
- da_big_ghey 5y ago
  Maybe since this person has a prominent place there is an attempt to set a better example for others? Not a cool move by Oren but maybe a "teachable moment".
  - chusk3 5y ago
    Please use the appropriate name for the person in question. Claire is her name.
Zababa 5y ago
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.
- bovermyer 5y ago
  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.
  - _wldu 5y ago
    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.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    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 intent from actions. Removing a merged PR is easy, especially when you can force merge one in the first place. Yet she didn't do it, but wrote a lot of text that is apparently an apology. If it's an apology, why is there no show of regret by retracting her PR? Maybe because it's not actually an apology. Edit: the PR was removed by the current maintainer.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      > 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.
      - Zababa 5y ago
        Yes, which is why I think deriving intentions from actions is useful in a lot of cases.
codingdave 5y ago
I'd guess because of this part of the post: "There is a pattern that needs to be resolved. Projects might not fully understand what joining the .NET Foundation means..." This sounds like not only an apology, but an attempt to start a discussion surrounding the community overall and get everyone to have matching expectations.
- bombcar 5y ago
  “I’m sorry you don’t understand that I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it further.”
katbyte 5y ago
the maintainer closed the PR twice, asking for her to follow the process before she reopened and merged it. Then reverted it. the apology is because it's not just about this PR. Among other things there is moving a number of projects into the foundations enterprise gh org without any warning/discussion using the admin account they forced upon/bullied project orgs into adding. This has affected some in a negative way already.

I'm confused why the correct course of action isn't to revert the commit, ask the author to re-open the PR for comment, and follow the process. Why the tortious apology?

umeshunni 5y ago

Because attention seeking...

Afforess 5y ago
I'm trying to assume good faith
- bombcar 5y ago
  This reads like someone who has the ability and power to just steamroll over everything trying to pretend they don’t have that power.
da_big_ghey 5y ago
Maybe since this person has a prominent place there is an attempt to set a better example for others? Not a cool move by Oren but maybe a "teachable moment".
- chusk3 5y ago
  Please use the appropriate name for the person in question. Claire is her name.

Zababa 5y ago

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.

bovermyer 5y ago
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.
- _wldu 5y ago
  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.
- Zababa 5y ago
  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 intent from actions. Removing a merged PR is easy, especially when you can force merge one in the first place. Yet she didn't do it, but wrote a lot of text that is apparently an apology. If it's an apology, why is there no show of regret by retracting her PR? Maybe because it's not actually an apology. Edit: the PR was removed by the current maintainer.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    > 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.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      Yes, which is why I think deriving intentions from actions is useful in a lot of cases.

codingdave 5y ago

I'd guess because of this part of the post: "There is a pattern that needs to be resolved. Projects might not fully understand what joining the .NET Foundation means..." This sounds like not only an apology, but an attempt to start a discussion surrounding the community overall and get everyone to have matching expectations.

bombcar 5y ago
“I’m sorry you don’t understand that I’m altering the deal. Pray I don’t alter it further.”

katbyte 5y ago

the maintainer closed the PR twice, asking for her to follow the process before she reopened and merged it. Then reverted it. the apology is because it's not just about this PR. Among other things there is moving a number of projects into the foundations enterprise gh org without any warning/discussion using the admin account they forced upon/bullied project orgs into adding. This has affected some in a negative way already.