My thoughts on the Recent DNF issues

[SeanKilleen]

This issue is multi-faceted; I'll attempt to put all the things that I think are true out there.

• Nobody's asking me; I'm on the sidelines here. This is more for me than anyone else.
• The .NET Foundation has an issue with expectations
• There is a gap between what the Foundation can do and how many project maintainers trusted them to wield that power based on expectations.
• Claire is one of the absolute bedrock contributors to the .NET OSS Ecosystem and is a hero of mine. We owe her our gratitude.
• This was a perfect storm of a personal mistake and surprise systemic issues around communication.
• Claire was at helm of DNF when these things happened.
• I believe Claire's resignation is sad; I also believe it is the proper choice in this case. I respect it immensely.
• Resigning doesn't mean that people thing Claire is bad
• Sexism and misogyny is real, is present in computer science, and is present in the .NET Community.
• I don't think Claire's resignation is related to sexism or misogyny, nor was the escalation -- though I understand why that concern would exist.
• Will this move decrease psychological safety? I don't think so. If people hide their thoughts and actions as a result of this, DNF will disintigrate.

Where does DNF go from here to reset trust? My suggestions:

• Anyone who wants to leave needs to be off-boarded amicably with the opportunity to return.
• Proactive Ultra-transparency in planning, actions, and communications -- work out loud and in public as often as possible. Share meeting minutes; share member positions; it's OK for discussions to get messy.
• Adding a step before any action is taken that aims for, in order of preference: 1) collaboration 2) consent 3) acknowledgment 4) multiple rounds of communication.
• A clarity around a social contract of what projects can expect to get out of this, and also what Microsoft aims to get out of this. It's OK for Microsoft to have a founding position and a lot of control (some disagree with this). I think it's OK to say something like "Microsoft through the .NET Foundation aims to support member projects and it return it expects to create a more uniform experience for the consumers of that software, which benefits everyone including Microsoft." This clarity around purpose and motivations would be welcome and helpful I think.

[SeanKilleen]

Closing this because I don't think it's entirely relevant anymore, others have said what I want to say, and I have no need to pile on.

note to self: publish things earlier.