> The bulk of the projects were migrated around August 2020. This was achieved by filing a GitHub support ticket
My team were repeatedly told it's not possible to move an existing organization into an enterprise account. The documentation also stated at the time.
GitHub only announced this functionality recently. https://github.blog/changelog/2021-09-30-github-enterprise-c...
Wow. They filed a ticket and then secretly used an admin bot user to accept the change? That sounds incredibly dishonest - not just an oops situation there.
Looking at the broader context, it seems that the foundation simply considered the projects as "theirs" in some key ways, honestly thought the migration was best for the projects, and so opted for a mechanism that would be quick and easy for everyone. From that point of view, you could even argue that bothering busy maintainers to get them to approve some minor housekeeping was just a waste of time...especially if you believe - as the foundation seemed to - that this change was both helpful and properly the foundations responsibility and not the maintainers.
Obviously, that viewpoint was not shared by the maintainers! And, thankfully, the foundation has now repudiated it, but if you take their statements at face value, I see nothing strange about how they did it.
This seems like the core issue. But I disagree it is a simple mistake. "Oops. I simply considered your work as mine. Sorry my bad!"
I think we can all agree how the foundation handled this was really bad, but if you don't like having the risk of a foundation unilaterally doing stuff, don't join it a foundation?
> The .NET Foundation uses either an assignment model or a contribution model for on-boarding new projects. Under the assignment model, a project transfers ownership of the copyright to the .NET Foundation. Under the contribution model, a project retains ownership of the copyright, but grants the .NET Foundation a broad license to the project’s code and other intellectual property.
I guess the impacted projects had not selected the "assignment model" in the first place.
I agree that it shouldn’t have been done in secret, but beyond that I don’t see any bad intentions here.
And it sounds like the maintainers, rightfully, are wary about continuing with the DNF particularly because they haven't been consulted in years.
This post makes the _action_ sound like a mistake when in fact it seems that the _decision_ was a mistake (loosely defined).
The board made the decision and followed through with it (i.e. did not make a mistake) and now “regrets the mistake happened”. So not only are they not actually apologizing for their actions but they are not even taking any real responsibility for them.
Like someone slipped on a damn banana peel and fell on the “take over all projects” button. Sploops!
I think decision is a better word for this, but it mostly gets the point across.
There must be an explanation on why they didn't have any second thought about it and did not even took the time to notify the owners that they were making this change without any action on their part.
I don't know if they'll tell us exactly what was going through the mind of the person who triggered the move, but I don't see any reason to assume that they can't change how they operate to be respectful of the project maintainers.
Seeing the various owner reactions this was obviously not clear for them
> Maybe they thought that moving to GitHub Enterprise is solely a helpful move since it gives extra features to the the projects for free (by that I mean that maybe they considered it to be the equivalent of simply setting a flag on the project that gives it access to those features). Maybe there was miscommunication internally due to not having well-define protocols and someone thought it was safe to move the project.
If no one in the .net foundation was able to raise an alarm about those transfers because of a "simple" lack of awareness of the importance of project ownership, then I don't see how they can rebuild the lost trust. They have demonstrated an absolute lack of understanding of their OSS community.
As you said maybe it is a process issue but simply saying "sorry we shouldn't have done that" is not transparent enough. Clearly at some point they were ok with those transfers since they were carried. And now they understand that it was a bad thing. What happened? Did the twitter/blog post backlash suddenly opened their eyes on the perspective of the project owners? If that is the case then what are the other things they need to realise in order to avoid making other mistakes such as this one?
If I were a maintainer I'd be removing that dnfadmin bot ASAP anyway.
Seems like a pretty obvious lie.
One of the people in the issues forum post about this pointed out how they had not only failed to give them "more services," but rather taken those "services" away over time. (1)
Why is no one else calling the obvious here?
Their foundation exec director got mad when someone called bullshit on giving the foundation admin over their repo to enforce "code of conduct." So the foundation exec director set out to get them to add the foundation's account to the admin list on their repos so that they could be taken control of in the middle of the night with no warning.
This is what happens when you have self promoting people with a privileged political status in administrative positions.
This whole crisis is not because of GitHub Enterprise usage alone. It is because of the absolute lack of communication and the disrespect towards the maintainers. That is so much worse than some CoC enforcement.
Chain of events:
1) The CLA library requested by the foundation was reported broken by an admin one of the member project repos. That member project repo had refused to turn over control of said repo to the foundation specifically because of the perceived overreach in authority stemming from the code of conduct policy of said foundation.
2) The exec director, or someone on the foundation's staff, told the person reporting the issue with the CLA library that the solution was to make the foundation account an admin on their repo.
3) When the foundation is made an admin on said repo, the repo is silently transferred to the foundation's account in the middle of the night with no warnings.
4) Then, exec director force-merges a pull in another repo, of the same CLA library.
This is all a very useful glimpse into how corporations will use their diversity hires to get rid of people who refuse to give the corporation what it wants without any compensation or resistance.
You shouldn't have in the first place. People trusted you with their projects.