4 ms·

> The bulk of the projects were migrated around August 2020. This was achieved by filing a GitHub support ticket. This also required an admin user in the org to

> The bulk of the projects were migrated around August 2020. This was achieved by filing a GitHub support ticket. This also required an admin user in the org to confirm the changes, for which the dnfadmin user account was used. Wow. They filed a ticket and then secretly used an admin bot user to accept the change? That sounds incredibly dishonest - not just an oops situation there.

onionisafruit 5y ago
What are they trying to get away with here? Is there a benefit to the dotnet foundation and corresponding cost to maintainers for an org being moved to the enterprise account? I agree that it shouldn’t have been done in secret, but beyond that I don’t see any bad intentions here.
- jsmeaton 5y ago
  I don't know that they're trying to get away with anything. From reading some of the linked blog posts and issues, it sounds like some people involved in the management of the DNF effectively consider all projects beneath the DNF umbrella to be theirs to administer and change as they see fit. And it sounds like the maintainers, rightfully, are wary about continuing with the DNF particularly because they haven't been consulted in years.
  - onionisafruit 5y ago
    That sounds about right. I always wonder what is the benefit of moving your open source project to a foundation. My best guess is that it’s when you are just done dealing with the project and want somebody else to maintain it, but you haven’t found an individual you trust to take it over.
    - nickstinemates 5y ago
      Once an open source project gets successful, there's a lot of pressure to do it, and among other things, gives the incumbents in the space some modicum of control
Lazare 5y ago
I disagree. Looking at the broader context, it seems that the foundation simply considered the projects as "theirs" in some key ways, honestly thought the migration was best for the projects, and so opted for a mechanism that would be quick and easy for everyone. From that point of view, you could even argue that bothering busy maintainers to get them to approve some minor housekeeping was just a waste of time...especially if you believe - as the foundation seemed to - that this change was both helpful and properly the foundations responsibility and not the maintainers. Obviously, that viewpoint was not shared by the maintainers! And, thankfully, the foundation has now repudiated it, but if you take their statements at face value, I see nothing strange about how they did it.
- jsmeaton 5y ago
  Yes that's a fair lens to view this situation with, I think, and I've stated a similar view in a sibling comment.
- sbergot 5y ago
  > it seems that the foundation simply considered the projects as "theirs" in some key ways This seems like the core issue. But I disagree it is a simple mistake. "Oops. I simply considered your work as mine. Sorry my bad!"
  - Master_Odin 5y ago
    All of these projects joined the .NET Foundation though. Was there any contract they signed or agreed to as part of joining the foundation? What were the terms the orgs agreed to? I think we can all agree how the foundation handled this was really bad, but if you don't like having the risk of a foundation unilaterally doing stuff, don't join it a foundation?
    - sbergot 5y ago
      Joining something does not mean automatically mean giving them authority on your work. Reading this page: https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit > The .NET Foundation uses either an assignment model or a contribution model for on-boarding new projects. Under the assignment model, a project transfers ownership of the copyright to the .NET Foundation. Under the contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants the .NET Foundation a broad license to the project’s code and other intellectual property. I guess the impacted projects had not selected the "assignment model" in the first place.

onionisafruit 5y ago

What are they trying to get away with here? Is there a benefit to the dotnet foundation and corresponding cost to maintainers for an org being moved to the enterprise account? I agree that it shouldn’t have been done in secret, but beyond that I don’t see any bad intentions here.

jsmeaton 5y ago
I don't know that they're trying to get away with anything. From reading some of the linked blog posts and issues, it sounds like some people involved in the management of the DNF effectively consider all projects beneath the DNF umbrella to be theirs to administer and change as they see fit. And it sounds like the maintainers, rightfully, are wary about continuing with the DNF particularly because they haven't been consulted in years.
- onionisafruit 5y ago
  That sounds about right. I always wonder what is the benefit of moving your open source project to a foundation. My best guess is that it’s when you are just done dealing with the project and want somebody else to maintain it, but you haven’t found an individual you trust to take it over.
  - nickstinemates 5y ago
    Once an open source project gets successful, there's a lot of pressure to do it, and among other things, gives the incumbents in the space some modicum of control

Lazare 5y ago

I disagree. Looking at the broader context, it seems that the foundation simply considered the projects as "theirs" in some key ways, honestly thought the migration was best for the projects, and so opted for a mechanism that would be quick and easy for everyone. From that point of view, you could even argue that bothering busy maintainers to get them to approve some minor housekeeping was just a waste of time...especially if you believe - as the foundation seemed to - that this change was both helpful and properly the foundations responsibility and not the maintainers. Obviously, that viewpoint was not shared by the maintainers! And, thankfully, the foundation has now repudiated it, but if you take their statements at face value, I see nothing strange about how they did it.

jsmeaton 5y ago
Yes that's a fair lens to view this situation with, I think, and I've stated a similar view in a sibling comment.
sbergot 5y ago
> it seems that the foundation simply considered the projects as "theirs" in some key ways This seems like the core issue. But I disagree it is a simple mistake. "Oops. I simply considered your work as mine. Sorry my bad!"
- Master_Odin 5y ago
  All of these projects joined the .NET Foundation though. Was there any contract they signed or agreed to as part of joining the foundation? What were the terms the orgs agreed to? I think we can all agree how the foundation handled this was really bad, but if you don't like having the risk of a foundation unilaterally doing stuff, don't join it a foundation?
  - sbergot 5y ago
    Joining something does not mean automatically mean giving them authority on your work. Reading this page: https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit https://dotnetfoundation.org/projects/submit > The .NET Foundation uses either an assignment model or a contribution model for on-boarding new projects. Under the assignment model, a project transfers ownership of the copyright to the .NET Foundation. Under the contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants the .NET Foundation a broad license to the project’s code and other intellectual property. I guess the impacted projects had not selected the "assignment model" in the first place.