3 ms·
> 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 improvin
by haswell 5y ago
> 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.'
The implication though is that becoming a member of the organization allows for actions like the one she took. I do think owning up to "maybe these agreements aren't clear enough" is good, but that then seems inextricably linked to "I was allowed to do this".
The reader then needs to figure out "is she apologizing because of what she did, or is she apologizing for not being clear that she was allowed to do what she did?"
If you're one of the maintainers, the latter falls flat, regardless of intent/genuineness.
I hope your more charitable take is closer to reality.
- jonathankoren 5y agoI don't know why there would be confusion about what she's apologizing for. She explicitly stated what the mistake was. > I shouldn't have merged this PR without explicit sign-off from the other maintainers, because it's disrespectful and rude not to follow the project’s process.
- haswell 5y agoBut when that is followed by an explanation outlining why they’re allowed to do what they did, and going forward they’ll try to make that more clear, how is one supposed to interpret the original apology and its intent? The apology and the legal overview do not coexist well.
- jonathankoren 5y agoAren’t people conflating two different things? Merging a PR when repeatedly asked not to until it got approved, and Microsoft moving repos? Merging the PR is a personal failure for which she explicitly apologized for. Microsoft moving repos is something that the organization has always said was possible. There’s not much to apologize there for. That has always been explicitly stated the rules.