3 ms·

https://github.com/mitmproxy/mitmproxy/issues/6051#issuecomment-1636320181 https://github.com/mitmproxy/mitmproxy/issues/6051#issuecomm...

morelisp 3y ago
Is the specific person important to the point? Edit to replies: Both the context and the employer were in the original post. Blasting the actual GitHub issue when it's clear the author specifically tried to avoid that is awful behavior too.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  Their IBM email address is.
- jlund-molfese 3y ago
  I don't think the person matters that much, but it's useful to see the context around the comment
  - whynotmaybe 3y ago
    Especially the fact that the issue is already resolved and "waiting" for release. IMHO, asking for the next release date is ok. He even added sorta justification as to "why" he asked it. Proposing consultancy services is also ok, just like answering "we don't have a release date" would also be ok. But the email... Can't choose between this guy thinks he is "The Guy Working At IBM", or he sucks at communicating.
- Un1corn 3y ago
  I don't think the person was important but the employer might. It seems to be IBM which is not surprising I guess, although I'd hoped that RedHat would influence how they work with open source somehow.
  - account42 3y ago
    > although I'd hoped that RedHat would influence how they work with open source somehow. From all the RedHat news lately it seems to be the other way around. Not unexpected as that's usually how acquisitions go.
- disruptiveink 3y ago
  Someone who's been 27 years at IBM[1] sending threats to an Open Source dev over email? It's definitely relevant. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/roncraignc https://www.linkedin.com/in/roncraignc
  - c0m 3y ago
    Just as calling the maintainer's offer extortion is not correct, I think it's also to call the email a threat is not correct. It's at worst entitled and slightly aggressive in the part that we saw. It's pretty shocking that someone in the industry so long thinks that OSS maintainers owe him anything though, or that he didn't think to simply fork his own version - he must know this is an option. He's probably read the MIT license at some point in his career - has he never stopped to think about what to provide something 'as-is' means? His position suggests that he has the resources available to do a lot of things that were far less embarrassing than asking someone who owes him nothing to make his job easier.
slig 3y ago
`FrugalGuy`. I can't even.
mcpackieh 3y ago
His followup email linked by the OP is completely over the line, but I don't think this github post was objectionable. (Nor was the "pay me" response objectionable.) > "Do you have a target date for the next release?" Simply asking for such a thing isn't objectionable, he's not demanding it. > "I'm trying to formulate our case for waiting, but need some kind of target date." The way this is phrased, the "need" is something others are requiring of him, not something he is requiring from the mitmproxy developer. In this comment, he's making a request and explaining his commercial and personal motivation for his request. There wasn't any problem here until the guy came back with an email throwing around words like extortion.
- hibbelig 3y ago
  I’m not a native speaker but the way I read it is that FrugalGuy needs some kind of target date. So FrugalGuy is asking mhils for a target date. Which is the opposite of what you’re saying.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    FrugalGuy asks (not demands) a target date, and explains that he needs one. It's a request with explanatory motive. "Can you loan me some money, I need to pay rent." vs "I need you to loan me money, because I need to pay rent."
    - dwaltrip 3y ago
      This such a good example of why communication is hard. You’ve made the distinction pretty clear, but often times it isn’t so easy to see or it can get muddled.
    - account42 3y ago
      More like "I've been subletting the appartment you have been providing to me for free and now my tenants are complaining that the company that made the paint also made lead paint. Can you please repaint all the walls even though you already checked that your building didn't use any of the lead paint so that I can continue to profit off of your house without paying you anything, kthx." The original comment was already at the very least, absolutely tone deaf.

morelisp 3y ago

Is the specific person important to the point? Edit to replies: Both the context and the employer were in the original post. Blasting the actual GitHub issue when it's clear the author specifically tried to avoid that is awful behavior too.

arghwhat 3y ago
Their IBM email address is.
jlund-molfese 3y ago
I don't think the person matters that much, but it's useful to see the context around the comment
- whynotmaybe 3y ago
  Especially the fact that the issue is already resolved and "waiting" for release. IMHO, asking for the next release date is ok. He even added sorta justification as to "why" he asked it. Proposing consultancy services is also ok, just like answering "we don't have a release date" would also be ok. But the email... Can't choose between this guy thinks he is "The Guy Working At IBM", or he sucks at communicating.
Un1corn 3y ago
I don't think the person was important but the employer might. It seems to be IBM which is not surprising I guess, although I'd hoped that RedHat would influence how they work with open source somehow.
- account42 3y ago
  > although I'd hoped that RedHat would influence how they work with open source somehow. From all the RedHat news lately it seems to be the other way around. Not unexpected as that's usually how acquisitions go.
disruptiveink 3y ago
Someone who's been 27 years at IBM[1] sending threats to an Open Source dev over email? It's definitely relevant. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/in/roncraignc https://www.linkedin.com/in/roncraignc
- c0m 3y ago
  Just as calling the maintainer's offer extortion is not correct, I think it's also to call the email a threat is not correct. It's at worst entitled and slightly aggressive in the part that we saw. It's pretty shocking that someone in the industry so long thinks that OSS maintainers owe him anything though, or that he didn't think to simply fork his own version - he must know this is an option. He's probably read the MIT license at some point in his career - has he never stopped to think about what to provide something 'as-is' means? His position suggests that he has the resources available to do a lot of things that were far less embarrassing than asking someone who owes him nothing to make his job easier.

slig 3y ago

`FrugalGuy`. I can't even.

mcpackieh 3y ago

His followup email linked by the OP is completely over the line, but I don't think this github post was objectionable. (Nor was the "pay me" response objectionable.) > "Do you have a target date for the next release?" Simply asking for such a thing isn't objectionable, he's not demanding it. > "I'm trying to formulate our case for waiting, but need some kind of target date." The way this is phrased, the "need" is something others are requiring of him, not something he is requiring from the mitmproxy developer. In this comment, he's making a request and explaining his commercial and personal motivation for his request. There wasn't any problem here until the guy came back with an email throwing around words like extortion.

hibbelig 3y ago
I’m not a native speaker but the way I read it is that FrugalGuy needs some kind of target date. So FrugalGuy is asking mhils for a target date. Which is the opposite of what you’re saying.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  FrugalGuy asks (not demands) a target date, and explains that he needs one. It's a request with explanatory motive. "Can you loan me some money, I need to pay rent." vs "I need you to loan me money, because I need to pay rent."
  - dwaltrip 3y ago
    This such a good example of why communication is hard. You’ve made the distinction pretty clear, but often times it isn’t so easy to see or it can get muddled.
  - account42 3y ago
    More like "I've been subletting the appartment you have been providing to me for free and now my tenants are complaining that the company that made the paint also made lead paint. Can you please repaint all the walls even though you already checked that your building didn't use any of the lead paint so that I can continue to profit off of your house without paying you anything, kthx." The original comment was already at the very least, absolutely tone deaf.