5 ms·

Can someone ELI5 why this is a big deal?

by wly_cdgr 5y ago

heavyset_go 5y ago
See my comment here[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28795275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28795275
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  The corporate hierarchical malarkey that gave Novotny the wherewithal and motivation to do this should be ripped out root and branch, as well as whatever specific job role that currently defines the executive directorship. I'm not saying Novotny should be fired, simply that the Foundation has demonstrated a corporate behavior fundamentally at odds with its supposed reason for existence. Respect for community and contributors was obviously not encoded into the design of the organization. That a board exists to rectify, rationalize, or abet mistakes isn't enough. They have to fix the root of the problem, which is that Novotny was able to do this at all. They need to make an explicit and ironclad promise to developers. They allowed institutional structure to oppose their mission. That won't change with mere words and staffing shuffles.
  - jjm 5y ago
    I’m a bit alarmed by the many issues here. I’ve heard a lot from the maintainers but much from the foundation. - continued lack of communication - for so many issues to occur to multiple parties paints a picture of it being routine - that no immediate reversals have happened with utmost immediacy - the ethos of the maturity model - the policies apparently being enforced - even now… - for calls to solve things privately It’s culturally indicative of the foundation’s values whether they know it or not. A healthy community is one where discussions happen in the open, good and bad. This is not good, and I’d recommend the community coming together and maybe finding or forming an alternative - which is difficult I know. I think apache.org could help here.
    - robmen 5y ago
      Yeah, the (continued) lack of communication is not great. But the timing is admittedly pretty poor for the .NET Foundation as well. They just brought on new board members this week. So delays are kinda' expected... but I would have communicated differently.
- wly_cdgr 5y ago
  From the GitHub thread it seems like these projects willingly transferred the copyright to the DNF when they joined; is that not the case? If it is what grounds do they have for being upset?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - jabbany 5y ago
    Copyright is only with respect to the code. What's being done here is changes to how the project is managed. Basically inserting an upper management over the heads of existing maintainers. AFAIK, this right was not given (or at least the maintainers did not intend to give) to the umbrella org.
    - still_grokking 5y ago
      But if you gave away copyright you don't own the project any more. And if you don't own it, you don't own it… The new owner can do further on how he pleases. Sad in this case(es) but from a legal standpoint it's very likely like that, I guess (INAL).
      - oaiey 5y ago
        Yeah, but a stupid owner does what they did as nuclear options, a smart owner has the power but never use them but convinces people and let them work loosely as long as this is possible. This is a cooperate thinking applied to a foundation. Is a recipe for failure.
      - didibus 5y ago
        I'm pretty sure the copyright is shared, at least that's how I've seen CLA's happen in the past, they grant joint ownership.
        robmen 5y ago
        Some projects are "contribution" (like you describe) and some are "assignment" (.NET Foundation holds the copyright).
dogleash 5y ago
An open source umbrella organization pulled rank and the member projects are connecting the dots to see that Microsoft views them as unpaid employees. No, it's not hyperbole. Go check the foundations website and you'll find that Microsoft has exclusive access to the highest level of power in the self-styled "independent" organization written right in to the bylaws.
- oaiey 5y ago
  It was setup for failure. I am pretty sure this exclusive access thing was to protect core .NET not the community projects. But exactly that is a core mismatch between what the foundation is and what people expects.
- robmen 5y ago
  Sigh. This isn't about Microsoft. It's about the .NET Foundation.
  - iakov 5y ago
    How are those two entities separate? MS has a non-removable seat on board and gets to appoint the director. I'm sure that DNF is seen as division from inside MS.
    - robmen 5y ago
      Because they are separate. Have you wanted the .NET Foundation and Microsoft interact?
      - iakov 5y ago
        Formally, yes. In reality though DNF is controlled by Microsoft through their pernament seat and an appointed director.

Can someone ELI5 why this is a big deal?

heavyset_go 5y ago

See my comment here[1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28795275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28795275

robbedpeter 5y ago
The corporate hierarchical malarkey that gave Novotny the wherewithal and motivation to do this should be ripped out root and branch, as well as whatever specific job role that currently defines the executive directorship. I'm not saying Novotny should be fired, simply that the Foundation has demonstrated a corporate behavior fundamentally at odds with its supposed reason for existence. Respect for community and contributors was obviously not encoded into the design of the organization. That a board exists to rectify, rationalize, or abet mistakes isn't enough. They have to fix the root of the problem, which is that Novotny was able to do this at all. They need to make an explicit and ironclad promise to developers. They allowed institutional structure to oppose their mission. That won't change with mere words and staffing shuffles.
- jjm 5y ago
  I’m a bit alarmed by the many issues here. I’ve heard a lot from the maintainers but much from the foundation. - continued lack of communication - for so many issues to occur to multiple parties paints a picture of it being routine - that no immediate reversals have happened with utmost immediacy - the ethos of the maturity model - the policies apparently being enforced - even now… - for calls to solve things privately It’s culturally indicative of the foundation’s values whether they know it or not. A healthy community is one where discussions happen in the open, good and bad. This is not good, and I’d recommend the community coming together and maybe finding or forming an alternative - which is difficult I know. I think apache.org could help here.
  - robmen 5y ago
    Yeah, the (continued) lack of communication is not great. But the timing is admittedly pretty poor for the .NET Foundation as well. They just brought on new board members this week. So delays are kinda' expected... but I would have communicated differently.
wly_cdgr 5y ago
From the GitHub thread it seems like these projects willingly transferred the copyright to the DNF when they joined; is that not the case? If it is what grounds do they have for being upset?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jabbany 5y ago
  Copyright is only with respect to the code. What's being done here is changes to how the project is managed. Basically inserting an upper management over the heads of existing maintainers. AFAIK, this right was not given (or at least the maintainers did not intend to give) to the umbrella org.
  - still_grokking 5y ago
    But if you gave away copyright you don't own the project any more. And if you don't own it, you don't own it… The new owner can do further on how he pleases. Sad in this case(es) but from a legal standpoint it's very likely like that, I guess (INAL).
    - oaiey 5y ago
      Yeah, but a stupid owner does what they did as nuclear options, a smart owner has the power but never use them but convinces people and let them work loosely as long as this is possible. This is a cooperate thinking applied to a foundation. Is a recipe for failure.
    - didibus 5y ago
      I'm pretty sure the copyright is shared, at least that's how I've seen CLA's happen in the past, they grant joint ownership.
      - robmen 5y ago
        Some projects are "contribution" (like you describe) and some are "assignment" (.NET Foundation holds the copyright).

dogleash 5y ago

An open source umbrella organization pulled rank and the member projects are connecting the dots to see that Microsoft views them as unpaid employees. No, it's not hyperbole. Go check the foundations website and you'll find that Microsoft has exclusive access to the highest level of power in the self-styled "independent" organization written right in to the bylaws.

oaiey 5y ago
It was setup for failure. I am pretty sure this exclusive access thing was to protect core .NET not the community projects. But exactly that is a core mismatch between what the foundation is and what people expects.
robmen 5y ago
Sigh. This isn't about Microsoft. It's about the .NET Foundation.
- iakov 5y ago
  How are those two entities separate? MS has a non-removable seat on board and gets to appoint the director. I'm sure that DNF is seen as division from inside MS.
  - robmen 5y ago
    Because they are separate. Have you wanted the .NET Foundation and Microsoft interact?
    - iakov 5y ago
      Formally, yes. In reality though DNF is controlled by Microsoft through their pernament seat and an appointed director.