[II2II]

The buck is passed all of the time, it simply happens internally and out of sight of the customer. In this case, it looks like an open source component managed by a commercial company. They could do everything out of sight, but the open source world also encourages transparency.

[TZubiri]

Right, as a customer you always prefer that it happen out of sight, but I guess these are the very tradeoffs of choosing open source software, you can't get the best of both worlds.

That said, maybe a slight change like, "I'll open a ticket with the other team" instead of "you should open a ticket with the other team" makes all the difference. But like I said in another comment, if you open a ticket on github, you aren't paying for that support, you should aim to have a commercial relationship with Microsoft and then raise the issue through that commercial channel.

Otherwise you have no recourse to complain, you are getting everything as-is.

[cjbgkagh]

I think a big part of the transparency was to help clean up this very mess, motivate developers to do the right thing or face public ridicule. The public is not in any org chain, we don’t get performance bonuses, we’re not incentivized to hide issues from upper management, it is very much the opposite. Having this out of band communication is incredibly valuable and helps keep the reporting chain honest. Someone somewhere inside MS will use this example in an effort to fix the process, much easier to say 30 random internet people with no motivation the lie or collude all agree that this is unacceptable than to say “I think this is unacceptable”.

[wat10000]

It's easy to have both transparency and proper handling. "Thank you for the report. This issue is actually in the underlying Whatever library. I've passed it along to that team."