Our great sponsors
-
-
Home
This is the landing repository for the .NET foundation efforts. Start here! (by dotnet-foundation)
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
-
-
foundation
Discontinued This repo is no longer being used. The information that is here has been migrated to https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/website. (by dotnet-foundation)
-
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
> I am not versed in all the details here
You should probably read the conversation in the PR: https://github.com/reactiveui/splat/pull/778
> there is a dire need for professional communications training among these programmers.
Maybe, but probably not why you think.
Once you've read the PR's conversation you'll see this isn't about someone just merging a PR which wasn't approved. This about someone submitting a PR, a maintainer asking for discussion before merging it, ignoring the maintainer and just merge the PR, the maintainer asking why it wasn't discussed and then making a snide remark to the maintainer.
So I agree that the "Sorry for merging a PR" isn't going to cut it here. The merging of the PR was the least of the problem. It's a hollow corporate-style apology where someone is allowed to be called out for. It's like saying: "Sorry I hurt your toe" after you pushed someone of a cliff.
I was ready to agree with you. And then I read https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/Home/discussions/38
And then I realized: her apology here isn’t addressing the root concerns. But it’s addressing everything she has authority to address. Therefore, it’s the best apology possible, but people may be upset because e.g. her merging a PR without discussion is perhaps less anxiety-inducing than the idea that your GitHub repo can be moved without warning to a separate enterprise account (if I’m reading this correctly).
I assume she can’t address the latter, since it’s unrelated to her. But she quite thoroughly addressed the former — which is great! — but perhaps she should have distanced herself in her apology from the other happenings that people have brought up.
I don’t know. It was just sort of shocking to read “they transferred my GitHub repo without warning” without an immediate “crap, sorry! We’ve reverted that” reply. I assume I’m missing lots of context though.
ship of Node: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/master/LICENSE
Linux: No copyright assignment, just a compatible license required: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin...
The CNCF and the kubernetes system does do a CLA, so it's not a concept the Linux foundation has never heard of it, but clearly it's not required for every project they support.
See also SPI's stance, which provides the legal support for projects like Debian and Arch Linux: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/
The DotNet Foundation does not require copyright assignment.
https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/foundation/blob/master/...
The CLA only grants a copyright license.
So it seems that the root of the whole mess is that the .NET Foundation demands that every project lets a centralized and anonymous committee enforce their code of conduct by banning users from all member projects.
https://github.com/dotnet-foundation/projects/issues/174
https://dotnetfoundation.org/about/code-of-conduct