Once again, someone else is far more pithy than I. +1
The title came from a comment from one of the maintainers of the WiX Toolset. I called the initial missteps a "maintainer kerfuffle" and he responded, "As long as it doesn't turn into a brouhaha". Now that I think about…
As far as I can tell, Jon and Scott are Microsoft dev evangelists. It really isn't their place to step into .NET Foundation issues. It might be even more weird if they did try weigh in.
Yes but I never had the copyright in the first place. This isn't about the copyright. I know I don't own it. This is about control of the project.
You should raise that feature request with GitHub. It's a good idea.
Meh. Other people here have pointed out it sends email to the people in the GitHub Enterprise. So, they probably missed a place to add auditing. To that point, I've had GitHub people tell me they never imagined the…
Hah, hah, hah, that's actually pretty good.
No.
Rodney is closer to many things than I but my experience shows these are the root issues: > does too little to help its member projects, and lacks a strong sense of mission or purpose. That's on the .NET Foundation, not…
Sure but I'm most interested in the project as a whole. And: > And there are advantages to a legally well protected entity holding the copyright.
I might agree with parts of what you are saying but when the channel to communicate back to the "powers that be" is broken and you face (what feels like) an existential threat, the public forum is an enticing, sometimes…
You are exactly correct here. This isn't about Microsoft or GitHub. It is solely about the .NET Foundation's actions.
This may have nailed the issue most closely yet. It took you a lot fewer words than me too. :)
Something is really wrong right now that's why they might be meeting every day. Your experience with the Eclipse Foundation is very different from how the .NET Foundation has interacted. On top of that, communication…
No worries. I disagree with a couple parts of your position but that doesn't mean you are wrong. :) I also happen to agree with the bulk of it.
Those are all possible futures.
Because they are separate. Have you wanted the .NET Foundation and Microsoft interact?
You are exactly correct. It isn't necessary to drag GitHub or Microsoft into the conversation. They aren't involved in this situation.
Not in my case. The article explains how the copyright transfer was executed.
What? Code of Conduct says stuff like, don't be mean to other people. It's a lot like: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Well, the .NET Foundation also holds the copyright and provides the CLA bots. But the great bulk of your point is correct.
My case is a little special because I developed the WiX Toolset when I was an employee at Microsoft. I never owned the copyright (Microsoft did). So, I wouldn't be asking for the copyright back... I'd be asking for it…
Repeating myself but it's applicable here too: I'm curious about this too. I was told (by someone at GitHub) that the features I used to do the move are brand new and were not expected to be used the way I did. It is…
I'm curious about this too. I was told (by someone at GitHub) that the features I used to do the move are brand new and not expected to be used the way I did. It is very possible pieces are missing in the audit trail…
Someone else noted that it may only send emails to the person that kicked the process off. I don't know, I don't own a GitHub Enterprise to try.
Once again, someone else is far more pithy than I. +1
The title came from a comment from one of the maintainers of the WiX Toolset. I called the initial missteps a "maintainer kerfuffle" and he responded, "As long as it doesn't turn into a brouhaha". Now that I think about…
As far as I can tell, Jon and Scott are Microsoft dev evangelists. It really isn't their place to step into .NET Foundation issues. It might be even more weird if they did try weigh in.
Yes but I never had the copyright in the first place. This isn't about the copyright. I know I don't own it. This is about control of the project.
You should raise that feature request with GitHub. It's a good idea.
Meh. Other people here have pointed out it sends email to the people in the GitHub Enterprise. So, they probably missed a place to add auditing. To that point, I've had GitHub people tell me they never imagined the…
Hah, hah, hah, that's actually pretty good.
No.
Rodney is closer to many things than I but my experience shows these are the root issues: > does too little to help its member projects, and lacks a strong sense of mission or purpose. That's on the .NET Foundation, not…
Sure but I'm most interested in the project as a whole. And: > And there are advantages to a legally well protected entity holding the copyright.
I might agree with parts of what you are saying but when the channel to communicate back to the "powers that be" is broken and you face (what feels like) an existential threat, the public forum is an enticing, sometimes…
You are exactly correct here. This isn't about Microsoft or GitHub. It is solely about the .NET Foundation's actions.
This may have nailed the issue most closely yet. It took you a lot fewer words than me too. :)
Something is really wrong right now that's why they might be meeting every day. Your experience with the Eclipse Foundation is very different from how the .NET Foundation has interacted. On top of that, communication…
No worries. I disagree with a couple parts of your position but that doesn't mean you are wrong. :) I also happen to agree with the bulk of it.
Those are all possible futures.
Because they are separate. Have you wanted the .NET Foundation and Microsoft interact?
You are exactly correct. It isn't necessary to drag GitHub or Microsoft into the conversation. They aren't involved in this situation.
Not in my case. The article explains how the copyright transfer was executed.
What? Code of Conduct says stuff like, don't be mean to other people. It's a lot like: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Well, the .NET Foundation also holds the copyright and provides the CLA bots. But the great bulk of your point is correct.
My case is a little special because I developed the WiX Toolset when I was an employee at Microsoft. I never owned the copyright (Microsoft did). So, I wouldn't be asking for the copyright back... I'd be asking for it…
Repeating myself but it's applicable here too: I'm curious about this too. I was told (by someone at GitHub) that the features I used to do the move are brand new and were not expected to be used the way I did. It is…
I'm curious about this too. I was told (by someone at GitHub) that the features I used to do the move are brand new and not expected to be used the way I did. It is very possible pieces are missing in the audit trail…
Someone else noted that it may only send emails to the person that kicked the process off. I don't know, I don't own a GitHub Enterprise to try.