3 ms·

Oh i recognised one of the involved people immediately, drama person. I still think that hijacking the mkdocs package was the wrong way to go though. The foss

by znpy 7mo ago

Oh i recognised one of the involved people immediately, drama person. I still think that hijacking the mkdocs package was the wrong way to go though. The foss landscape has become way too much fork-phobic. Just fork mkdocs and go over your merry way.

rglullis 7mo ago
Drama around Starlette. Drama around httpx. Drama around MkDocs. I just hope that DRF is not next, I still have some projects that depend on it.
- forkerenok 7mo ago
  What's the drama around starlette? (Can't find anything)
  - mananaysiempre 7mo ago
    https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3180 https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3180 and before that https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3042 https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3042
    - noirscape 7mo ago
      I think that may be the first time I've seen licensing drama over something as minor as adding another author to the copyright list. Pretty sure those are completely standard for major changes in maintainers/hostile forks/acknowledging major contributors. I've seen a lot of abandoned MIT/BSD projects add a new line for forks/maintainers being active again in order to acknowledge that the project is currently being headed by someone else. From my "I am not a lawyer" view, Kludex is basically correct, although I suppose to do it "properly", he might need to just duplicate the license text in order to make it clear both contributors licensed under BSD 3-clause. Probably unnecessary though, given it's not a license switch (you see that style more for ie. switching from MIT to BSD or from MIT/BSD to GPL, since that's a more substantial change); the intent of the license remains the same regardless and it's hard to imagine anyone would get confused. I suspect (given the hammering on it in responses), that Kludex asking ChatGPT if it was correct is what actually pissed off the original developer, rather than the addition of Kludex to the list in and of itself.
      - mananaysiempre 7mo ago
        (Not a lawyer either but—) The original author said they were “the license holder”, specifically with a “the”, in discussions around both Starlette and MkDocs, which yes, just isn’t true even after rounding the phrase to the nearest meaningful, “the copyright holder”. This appears to be an honest misconception of theirs, so, not the end of the world, except they seem to be failing at communication hard enough to not realize they might be wrong to begin with. Note though that with respect to Starlette this ended up being essentially a (successful and by all appearances not intentionally hostile?) project takeover, so the emotional weight of the drama should be measured with respect to that, not just an additional copyright line.
    - hitekker 7mo ago
      lovelydinosaur appears to be undergoing a mental health crisis. Besides the drama and lies, I notice they (I think they?) seemed to misname the maintainer on purpose. They did it in the first thread, which the maintainer tried to correct, and they misnamed him again in the second thread. Mia Kimberly Christie seems like dangerous person.
      - fastily 7mo ago
        This has been ongoing for some time. I’ve raised valid issues in several encode projects and received rude/dismissive comments from this individual. I’ve reviewed their recent interactions with others on GitHub and it’s obvious that Mia (tom?) is super toxic/drama seeking
        ldng 7mo ago
        They always were but it's clearly spiraling faster.
- kwsp 7mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- mananaysiempre 7mo ago
  Per TFA, there’s similarly-shaped low-key drama around DRF too[1] although issues and discussions have been reënabled since then. [1] https://github.com/orgs/encode/discussions/11#discussioncomment-12311196 https://github.com/orgs/encode/discussions/11#discussioncomm...
globular-toast 7mo ago
Right, my suspicion was correct. When I interacted with them a few years ago they seemed perfectly nice and friendly, but seem to have gone off the rails more recently. It's an uncomfortable situation and I've a feeling people are afraid to discuss this kind of thing but we really need to. People are a risk factor in software projects and we need to be resilient to changes they face. Forking is the right way, but places like GitHub have sold people on centralisation. We need to get back to decentralised dev.
- znpy 7mo ago
  > but places like GitHub have sold people on centralisation. We need to get back to decentralised dev. I don’t think that’s the case. It’s more of a marketing/market incentive. It’s great pr to be associated with the most famous project, way less so to be associated with a fork, at least until the fork becomes widespread and well recognised. GitHub does make it fairly easy to fork a project, I wouldn’t blame the situation on github.
  - globular-toast 7mo ago
    Just look at how much of the drama is caused by who "owns" the repository. In a decentralised model, which git perfectly supports, everybody owns their own branch(es). But all the issues etc. are stuck on the GitHub project.
    - znpy 7mo ago
      > In a decentralised model, which git perfectly supports, everybody owns their own branch(es). But all the issues etc. are stuck on the GitHub project. yeah i'm gonna call BS on this. this kind of drama already existed when communities were "decentralised" and each one had its own forum, mailing list or whatever. the core of the issue here is about wanting to be the owner of a repository. so people should just not bother with being owner of a specific repository, but just fork it and move on. and github supports forking sufficiently well for this purpose.
      - 7mo ago

by znpy 7mo ago

rglullis 7mo ago

Drama around Starlette. Drama around httpx. Drama around MkDocs. I just hope that DRF is not next, I still have some projects that depend on it.

forkerenok 7mo ago
What's the drama around starlette? (Can't find anything)
- mananaysiempre 7mo ago
  https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3180 https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3180 and before that https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3042 https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3042
  - noirscape 7mo ago
    I think that may be the first time I've seen licensing drama over something as minor as adding another author to the copyright list. Pretty sure those are completely standard for major changes in maintainers/hostile forks/acknowledging major contributors. I've seen a lot of abandoned MIT/BSD projects add a new line for forks/maintainers being active again in order to acknowledge that the project is currently being headed by someone else. From my "I am not a lawyer" view, Kludex is basically correct, although I suppose to do it "properly", he might need to just duplicate the license text in order to make it clear both contributors licensed under BSD 3-clause. Probably unnecessary though, given it's not a license switch (you see that style more for ie. switching from MIT to BSD or from MIT/BSD to GPL, since that's a more substantial change); the intent of the license remains the same regardless and it's hard to imagine anyone would get confused. I suspect (given the hammering on it in responses), that Kludex asking ChatGPT if it was correct is what actually pissed off the original developer, rather than the addition of Kludex to the list in and of itself.
    - mananaysiempre 7mo ago
      (Not a lawyer either but—) The original author said they were “the license holder”, specifically with a “the”, in discussions around both Starlette and MkDocs, which yes, just isn’t true even after rounding the phrase to the nearest meaningful, “the copyright holder”. This appears to be an honest misconception of theirs, so, not the end of the world, except they seem to be failing at communication hard enough to not realize they might be wrong to begin with. Note though that with respect to Starlette this ended up being essentially a (successful and by all appearances not intentionally hostile?) project takeover, so the emotional weight of the drama should be measured with respect to that, not just an additional copyright line.
  - hitekker 7mo ago
    lovelydinosaur appears to be undergoing a mental health crisis. Besides the drama and lies, I notice they (I think they?) seemed to misname the maintainer on purpose. They did it in the first thread, which the maintainer tried to correct, and they misnamed him again in the second thread. Mia Kimberly Christie seems like dangerous person.
    - fastily 7mo ago
      This has been ongoing for some time. I’ve raised valid issues in several encode projects and received rude/dismissive comments from this individual. I’ve reviewed their recent interactions with others on GitHub and it’s obvious that Mia (tom?) is super toxic/drama seeking
      - ldng 7mo ago
        They always were but it's clearly spiraling faster.
kwsp 7mo ago
[dead]
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
mananaysiempre 7mo ago
Per TFA, there’s similarly-shaped low-key drama around DRF too[1] although issues and discussions have been reënabled since then. [1] https://github.com/orgs/encode/discussions/11#discussioncomment-12311196 https://github.com/orgs/encode/discussions/11#discussioncomm...

globular-toast 7mo ago

Right, my suspicion was correct. When I interacted with them a few years ago they seemed perfectly nice and friendly, but seem to have gone off the rails more recently. It's an uncomfortable situation and I've a feeling people are afraid to discuss this kind of thing but we really need to. People are a risk factor in software projects and we need to be resilient to changes they face. Forking is the right way, but places like GitHub have sold people on centralisation. We need to get back to decentralised dev.

znpy 7mo ago
> but places like GitHub have sold people on centralisation. We need to get back to decentralised dev. I don’t think that’s the case. It’s more of a marketing/market incentive. It’s great pr to be associated with the most famous project, way less so to be associated with a fork, at least until the fork becomes widespread and well recognised. GitHub does make it fairly easy to fork a project, I wouldn’t blame the situation on github.
- globular-toast 7mo ago
  Just look at how much of the drama is caused by who "owns" the repository. In a decentralised model, which git perfectly supports, everybody owns their own branch(es). But all the issues etc. are stuck on the GitHub project.
  - znpy 7mo ago
    > In a decentralised model, which git perfectly supports, everybody owns their own branch(es). But all the issues etc. are stuck on the GitHub project. yeah i'm gonna call BS on this. this kind of drama already existed when communities were "decentralised" and each one had its own forum, mailing list or whatever. the core of the issue here is about wanting to be the owner of a repository. so people should just not bother with being owner of a specific repository, but just fork it and move on. and github supports forking sufficiently well for this purpose.
    - 7mo ago