3 ms·

What's bad about not wanting to lose developer love?

by sedatk 5y ago

skohan 5y ago
The problem is they're showing they will behave as badly as they're allowed to. Not terribly good for trust if it takes backlash for them to act the right way.
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  At least they shoved that they can undo a bad decision if the community asks for it. This reads like an apology and recognizing they've made a mistake: >We are always listening to our customers’ feedback to deliver on their needs. Thank you for making your feedback heard. We are sorry that we made so many community members upset via this change across many parameters including timing and execution. >Our desire is to create an open and vibrant ecosystem for .NET. As is true with many companies, we are learning to balance the needs of OSS community and being a corporate sponsor for .NET. Sometimes we don’t get it right. When we don’t, the best we can do is learn from our mistakes and be better moving forward. >Thank you for all of your feedback and your contributions over the years. We are committed to developing .NET in the open and look forward to continuing to work closely with the community. >Thank you! > Scott Hunter
  - skohan 5y ago
    I mean of course it reads like that - MS and similar corporations pay PR people quite a lot of money to craft messaging to frame things in the best possible way. This is not your personal friend or colleague asking forgiveness when they messed up, it's a multinational corporation acting in their own best interest, just as they did when they tried to get away with moving this feature from free to paid
pritambaral 5y ago
That's certainly one way to frame it; though, I think, a very narrow view. They knew they were going to lose some 'developer love' when they originally made the decision. They went ahead anyway. So, your framing isn't adequate. What made them walk back is when they realised _how much_ they'd lose. Which happened only because lots of people were outraged and vocally spoke against it. Far more than the number of people they were expecting. It'd be naive to believe they didn't know they're going to lose some, especially given how long they've kept up their charade of 'MS :hearts: OSS'. What's more likely, and supported from evidence of their similar behaviour in other parts of their OSS charade, is that they thought they could get away with it this time too.
- sedatk 5y ago
  > What made them walk back is when they realised _how much_ they'd lose. What's wrong with this arithmetic? Don't independent FOSS organizations have similar metrics when deciding on things? They want to progress while causing the least amount of grievance to the community, and when it exceeds expectations, they walk back? For example, I hate Firefox's new tab UI; I think it's terrible, and one of the reasons I stopped using it. But, apparently I'm in the minority, so Mozilla Foundation is okay losing my love. Had the backlash exceeded Mozilla's expectations, wouldn't they have walked back? What's extra sinister about what Microsoft's doing here (besides other valid points of criticism)?
  - pritambaral 5y ago
    > What's wrong with this arithmetic? Don't independent FOSS organizations have similar metrics when deciding on things? Math is never the problem; it's what you use it for. > They want to progress while causing the least amount of grievance to the community ... Except that's not what's happening here at all. Cannibalising a promised, existing OSS feature in favour of one's proprietary tool is not "progress". What caused them to back off wasn't a desire to minimise "grievance to the community", but harm to their self-image. I'm not going to deign your sidetrack about another, actually Open Source product, making UX decisions, with a reply in connection to this charade of OSS.

What's bad about not wanting to lose developer love?

by sedatk 5y ago

What's bad about not wanting to lose developer love?

The problem is they're showing they will behave as badly as they're allowed to. Not terribly good for trust if it takes backlash for them to act the right way.

DeathArrow 5y ago
At least they shoved that they can undo a bad decision if the community asks for it. This reads like an apology and recognizing they've made a mistake: >We are always listening to our customers’ feedback to deliver on their needs. Thank you for making your feedback heard. We are sorry that we made so many community members upset via this change across many parameters including timing and execution. >Our desire is to create an open and vibrant ecosystem for .NET. As is true with many companies, we are learning to balance the needs of OSS community and being a corporate sponsor for .NET. Sometimes we don’t get it right. When we don’t, the best we can do is learn from our mistakes and be better moving forward. >Thank you for all of your feedback and your contributions over the years. We are committed to developing .NET in the open and look forward to continuing to work closely with the community. >Thank you! > Scott Hunter
- skohan 5y ago
  I mean of course it reads like that - MS and similar corporations pay PR people quite a lot of money to craft messaging to frame things in the best possible way. This is not your personal friend or colleague asking forgiveness when they messed up, it's a multinational corporation acting in their own best interest, just as they did when they tried to get away with moving this feature from free to paid

pritambaral 5y ago

That's certainly one way to frame it; though, I think, a very narrow view. They knew they were going to lose some 'developer love' when they originally made the decision. They went ahead anyway. So, your framing isn't adequate. What made them walk back is when they realised _how much_ they'd lose. Which happened only because lots of people were outraged and vocally spoke against it. Far more than the number of people they were expecting. It'd be naive to believe they didn't know they're going to lose some, especially given how long they've kept up their charade of 'MS :hearts: OSS'. What's more likely, and supported from evidence of their similar behaviour in other parts of their OSS charade, is that they thought they could get away with it this time too.

sedatk 5y ago
> What made them walk back is when they realised _how much_ they'd lose. What's wrong with this arithmetic? Don't independent FOSS organizations have similar metrics when deciding on things? They want to progress while causing the least amount of grievance to the community, and when it exceeds expectations, they walk back? For example, I hate Firefox's new tab UI; I think it's terrible, and one of the reasons I stopped using it. But, apparently I'm in the minority, so Mozilla Foundation is okay losing my love. Had the backlash exceeded Mozilla's expectations, wouldn't they have walked back? What's extra sinister about what Microsoft's doing here (besides other valid points of criticism)?
- pritambaral 5y ago
  > What's wrong with this arithmetic? Don't independent FOSS organizations have similar metrics when deciding on things? Math is never the problem; it's what you use it for. > They want to progress while causing the least amount of grievance to the community ... Except that's not what's happening here at all. Cannibalising a promised, existing OSS feature in favour of one's proprietary tool is not "progress". What caused them to back off wasn't a desire to minimise "grievance to the community", but harm to their self-image. I'm not going to deign your sidetrack about another, actually Open Source product, making UX decisions, with a reply in connection to this charade of OSS.