195 karma · joined October 8, 2021
But the argument is about whether the .NET Foundation could do such a thing. The argument is whether they should. And, the .NET Foundation chooses that they should take over the projects, project maintainers can make different decisions themselves.
None of this has been decided yet.
And Microsoft isn't involved. The .NET Foundation holds the copyright.
What was not expected was the move to GitHub Enterprise while the CLA bot was fixed.
We had a new repo where the CLA bot was not automatically working. I was busy with a deadline so to unblock the team, I granted admin access.
It wasn't social engineering. I did it. I just didn't realize what was going to happen after doing so.
I explain it all in the post.
Also, this is about the .NET Foundation not Microsoft.
The leadership of the .NET Foundation changed twice since my project joined it. So it is very possible (likely?) norms and expectations did not have flowed from one set of leaders to the next. I don't know. I'm still waiting to hear.
Otherwise, reasonable summary without as much flair and color commentary as the original. ;)
Writing the whole entry was challenging because there is a lot of detail I wanted to provide to being everyone along the journey. I've seen some people drop in at any isolated point and say, "Why is this a big deal?"
Also I'll be the first to admit that when in story telling mode, I am not particularly terse. :)
But this issue now really isn't about the source control hosting provider. It isn't even about Microsoft. It's about my relationship with the .NET Foundation who (now) holds the copyright of the project I released on SourceForge over 17 years ago.
GitHub actually had the tools I needed to move the project back. Not much more I could have asked for, honestly.