4 ms·

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 migr

by 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.

by Lazare 5y ago

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.