5 ms·

Many projects joined the .NET Foundation after it was created. It didn't really do anything for them (I think they basically sponsor meetups), but it wasn't har

by Permit 5y ago

Many projects joined the .NET Foundation after it was created. It didn't really do anything for them (I think they basically sponsor meetups), but it wasn't harming anyone either. The .NET Foundation asked for owner access on the author's repository (for a CLA bot). The author declined and a workaround was organized. Years later the .NET Foundation asked for "owner access" on the author's repository (to allow them enforce Code of Conduct across all repositories). The author declined. The CLA bot stopped working. The author was told it would work if he gave it owner access. The author was annoyed because they previously had a workaround. They gave in and gave @dnfadmin owner access (temporarily, it was later revoked after the CLA bot was set up, thanks /u/ethbr0 for the correction). Some time later the author realized that the project had now been silently moved to GitHub Enterprise (likely in the short window @dnfadmin had owner access). The author states that projects in GitHub Enterprise can be entirely controlled by the owner of the account (the .NET Foundation). This transfer happened silently. Independently, this happened to another project (who had coincidentally had an issue with a Microsoft employee and former contributor force a pull-request into their project: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778 https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778). The change itself seems innocuous, but the approach bothered people. People are upset because of how tone-deaf all of this is. They would like the .NET Foundation to stop trying to gain complete control over the member projects. They would especially like for their projects not to have their ownership changed silently. Edit: For the record, I do not believe this is part of some embrace, extend, extinguish plan on behalf of Microsoft. I think these accusations actually cheapen what has happened here. I suspect this was more of a "can we make this process easier and more convenient for the .NET Foundation"-type thing. The people involved with this will have to do some soul searching. The .NET Foundation should operate in service of its member projects, not the other way around.

ethbr0 5y ago
> They gave in and gave @dnfadmin owner access Temporarily gave @dnfadmin access, is my read. > "The .NET Foundation had admin access to the WiX Toolset organization for a week, not more than a week ago"
- Permit 5y ago
  Good catch! I didn't notice that on my read-through. I've updated my post to include this.
NortySpock 5y ago
Thanks for the clear summary. So, the proper, open-source-if-a-bit-dickish way to go about this would have been... 1) Microsoft forks the primary git repository and declares theirs to be "Microsoft-blessed". 2) Microsoft puts a skeleton team in charge of maintaining the Microsoft-blessed version, but mostly they just pull the original maintainer's patches. 3) People slowly migrate to the Microsoft blessed version. NOT: We flipped this hidden switch under the table and now your repository in GitHub is controlled by us.
- dgellow 5y ago
  As far as I understand the foundation is a distinct entity, it’s not Microsoft doing this.
  - tarsinge 5y ago
    Even the director of the .NET Foundation is a MS employee (Program Manager), of course in practice it’s a MS entity.
    - robmen 5y ago
      Have you interacted with the .NET Foundation much? Have you seen how the .NET Foundation interacts with Microsoft?
      - arvindamirtaa 5y ago
        Posted a response to this elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28796675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28796675
- josefx 5y ago
  The proper way would have been to leave the project alone, notify the maintainers of problems if any turn up and remove the project from the .Net Foundation if the problems persist. Of course from the issues that came up the last few days it seems that there is literally no point in joining the .Net Foundation and kicking a project out is essentially doing the maintainers a favor.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
plorkyeran 5y ago
> I suspect this was more of a "can we make this process easier and more convenient for the .NET Foundation"-type thing. I suspect there was also just a different picture on what the .NET Foundation even meant inside and outside of MS. It's different people working on it inside MS than the ones who originally set things up, and the new people may not have even seen their actions as trying to take control of anything because they were under the impression that everyone considered them in charge already.
- robmen 5y ago
  This issue is really only about the .NET Foundation and not Microsoft. Otherwise, you may very well be correct. The leadership of the .NET Foundation changed twice since my project joined it. So it is very possible (likely?) norms and expectations did not have flowed from one set of leaders to the next. I don't know. I'm still waiting to hear.
pabs3 5y ago
Fiscal sponsors should never have access to code repositories...
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  I don't think this applies as a general rule. One could imagine reasons why they should have access (of different kinds), especially when they employ key maintainers and are the driving force behind the project.
devwastaken 5y ago
Incompetent workers, it's that simple really. MS assigns college degrees to projects, those college degrees understand very little about software, much less the culture of repository ownership and open source relationships. Too many employees, not enough experience heading them. Microsoft and orgs like it are too big, you cannot trust a massive machine to be efficient, there's little incentive for proper management.
- Permit 5y ago
  This is definitely not the case. The .Net Foundation is not staffed by Microsoft, nor is it owned by Microsoft. It’s an entirely distinct entity though I believe some board members work for Microsoft.
  - hizanberg 5y ago
    That’s where the poor & questionable transparency comes in, they try to market it as independent but it was formed and funded by Microsoft with the Executive Director whose performing all the objectionable actions an MS employee who is also the only person that is able to approve all material changes made to the foundation whose position can only be filled by the founding member who is Microsoft, in effect they are the silent hand making all the power moves to its member projects without their consent, wishes or even a courtesy notification. Then to try downplay the bad PR you had the MS VP Director with no visible ties to the foundation willing to jump on a call to disgruntled members so they can downplay their MS foundation employees actions behind close doors. https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39#discussioncomment-1442187 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39#dis...
  - cvak 5y ago
    But the Github Enterprise admins, and people actually fixing the CLA bot probably are from MS?
    - robmen 5y ago
      No.
moksly 5y ago
I think this is on point. We once had an issue with open street maps, that caused our routing system to not be capable of directing citizens and employees to the second biggest municipality in our country because a one way street had the wrong direction marked in OSM by mistake. This had a huge impact on us. With thousands of employees and citizens calling our IT support staff of 5 people every day. When I used our OSM official “City off X” account to fix it, I was an utter idiot and submitted both a real life picture I took myself as well as a Google maps and a krak maps (Danish map service) screenshots. I didn’t know this wasn’t legal, because I was an idiot, but it resulted in our fix getting reversed and a week long discussion with the OSM community members about fixing the damn street. We made the street one way. But we couldn’t fix it in an OSS map service because the community wouldn’t let us because we made a stupid mistake. We’ve now switched our services to Krak. But I can promise you that if we had, had the admin power to force our chance through during those days, we wouldn’t have given any regards to the OSS community. If an popular tool wasn’t working within the .Net framework CLA I imagine the process would be somewhat similar inside Microsoft. It’s just one of those things where the OSS community processes and Enterprise process of “get this fixed right now, at any cost by any means, ignoring every standard we may have, just get it fixed, now. Then make sure it never happens again.” that happens every now and then when the beast awakens, clashes. I’m not sure how you can avoid it, as Enterprise will never want to comply with OSS processes when it’s in a hurry.
- robmen 5y ago
  Nice story, dude. :)
- olau 5y ago
  I'm not sure this observation is to the point. Most enterprises do not allow this kind of behavior either, unless you happen to sit at the right place in the hierarchy. If you had violated the terms of service of Google Maps, they would probably have banned you immediately too. But yes, it may seem a little confusing that even though you can do X, it may not be appropriate. I think that's also why people are upset in this case. They actually did try to protect themselves from power grabs, only to find themselves cheated. By the way, there's a Danish mailing list for OSM. I don't know if you explained the issue there, but if you did, I think it's likely someone would have made the correction for you relatively quickly.
robmen 5y ago
Minor nit: the admin access wasn't requested for the CLA bot but getting a non-functional CLA bot fixed was the reason I gave temporary access. Otherwise, reasonable summary without as much flair and color commentary as the original. ;)
tylermenezes 5y ago
> who had coincidentally had an issue with a Microsoft employee and former contributor force a pull-request into their project It was the head of the .NET Foundation

by Permit 5y ago

ethbr0 5y ago

> They gave in and gave @dnfadmin owner access Temporarily gave @dnfadmin access, is my read. > "The .NET Foundation had admin access to the WiX Toolset organization for a week, not more than a week ago"

Permit 5y ago
Good catch! I didn't notice that on my read-through. I've updated my post to include this.

NortySpock 5y ago

Thanks for the clear summary. So, the proper, open-source-if-a-bit-dickish way to go about this would have been... 1) Microsoft forks the primary git repository and declares theirs to be "Microsoft-blessed". 2) Microsoft puts a skeleton team in charge of maintaining the Microsoft-blessed version, but mostly they just pull the original maintainer's patches. 3) People slowly migrate to the Microsoft blessed version. NOT: We flipped this hidden switch under the table and now your repository in GitHub is controlled by us.

dgellow 5y ago
As far as I understand the foundation is a distinct entity, it’s not Microsoft doing this.
- tarsinge 5y ago
  Even the director of the .NET Foundation is a MS employee (Program Manager), of course in practice it’s a MS entity.
  - robmen 5y ago
    Have you interacted with the .NET Foundation much? Have you seen how the .NET Foundation interacts with Microsoft?
    - arvindamirtaa 5y ago
      Posted a response to this elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28796675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28796675
josefx 5y ago
The proper way would have been to leave the project alone, notify the maintainers of problems if any turn up and remove the project from the .Net Foundation if the problems persist. Of course from the issues that came up the last few days it seems that there is literally no point in joining the .Net Foundation and kicking a project out is essentially doing the maintainers a favor.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

plorkyeran 5y ago

> I suspect this was more of a "can we make this process easier and more convenient for the .NET Foundation"-type thing. I suspect there was also just a different picture on what the .NET Foundation even meant inside and outside of MS. It's different people working on it inside MS than the ones who originally set things up, and the new people may not have even seen their actions as trying to take control of anything because they were under the impression that everyone considered them in charge already.

robmen 5y ago
This issue is really only about the .NET Foundation and not Microsoft. Otherwise, you may very well be correct. The leadership of the .NET Foundation changed twice since my project joined it. So it is very possible (likely?) norms and expectations did not have flowed from one set of leaders to the next. I don't know. I'm still waiting to hear.

pabs3 5y ago

Fiscal sponsors should never have access to code repositories...

bayesian_horse 5y ago
I don't think this applies as a general rule. One could imagine reasons why they should have access (of different kinds), especially when they employ key maintainers and are the driving force behind the project.

devwastaken 5y ago

Incompetent workers, it's that simple really. MS assigns college degrees to projects, those college degrees understand very little about software, much less the culture of repository ownership and open source relationships. Too many employees, not enough experience heading them. Microsoft and orgs like it are too big, you cannot trust a massive machine to be efficient, there's little incentive for proper management.

Permit 5y ago
This is definitely not the case. The .Net Foundation is not staffed by Microsoft, nor is it owned by Microsoft. It’s an entirely distinct entity though I believe some board members work for Microsoft.
- hizanberg 5y ago
  That’s where the poor & questionable transparency comes in, they try to market it as independent but it was formed and funded by Microsoft with the Executive Director whose performing all the objectionable actions an MS employee who is also the only person that is able to approve all material changes made to the foundation whose position can only be filled by the founding member who is Microsoft, in effect they are the silent hand making all the power moves to its member projects without their consent, wishes or even a courtesy notification. Then to try downplay the bad PR you had the MS VP Director with no visible ties to the foundation willing to jump on a call to disgruntled members so they can downplay their MS foundation employees actions behind close doors. https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39#discussioncomment-1442187 https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/39#dis...
- cvak 5y ago
  But the Github Enterprise admins, and people actually fixing the CLA bot probably are from MS?
  - robmen 5y ago
    No.

moksly 5y ago

I think this is on point. We once had an issue with open street maps, that caused our routing system to not be capable of directing citizens and employees to the second biggest municipality in our country because a one way street had the wrong direction marked in OSM by mistake. This had a huge impact on us. With thousands of employees and citizens calling our IT support staff of 5 people every day. When I used our OSM official “City off X” account to fix it, I was an utter idiot and submitted both a real life picture I took myself as well as a Google maps and a krak maps (Danish map service) screenshots. I didn’t know this wasn’t legal, because I was an idiot, but it resulted in our fix getting reversed and a week long discussion with the OSM community members about fixing the damn street. We made the street one way. But we couldn’t fix it in an OSS map service because the community wouldn’t let us because we made a stupid mistake. We’ve now switched our services to Krak. But I can promise you that if we had, had the admin power to force our chance through during those days, we wouldn’t have given any regards to the OSS community. If an popular tool wasn’t working within the .Net framework CLA I imagine the process would be somewhat similar inside Microsoft. It’s just one of those things where the OSS community processes and Enterprise process of “get this fixed right now, at any cost by any means, ignoring every standard we may have, just get it fixed, now. Then make sure it never happens again.” that happens every now and then when the beast awakens, clashes. I’m not sure how you can avoid it, as Enterprise will never want to comply with OSS processes when it’s in a hurry.

robmen 5y ago
Nice story, dude. :)
olau 5y ago
I'm not sure this observation is to the point. Most enterprises do not allow this kind of behavior either, unless you happen to sit at the right place in the hierarchy. If you had violated the terms of service of Google Maps, they would probably have banned you immediately too. But yes, it may seem a little confusing that even though you can do X, it may not be appropriate. I think that's also why people are upset in this case. They actually did try to protect themselves from power grabs, only to find themselves cheated. By the way, there's a Danish mailing list for OSM. I don't know if you explained the issue there, but if you did, I think it's likely someone would have made the correction for you relatively quickly.

robmen 5y ago

Minor nit: the admin access wasn't requested for the CLA bot but getting a non-functional CLA bot fixed was the reason I gave temporary access. Otherwise, reasonable summary without as much flair and color commentary as the original. ;)

tylermenezes 5y ago

> who had coincidentally had an issue with a Microsoft employee and former contributor force a pull-request into their project It was the head of the .NET Foundation