[znpy]

Oh i recognised one of the involved people immediately, drama person.

I still think that hijacking the mkdocs package was the wrong way to go though.

The foss landscape has become way too much fork-phobic.

Just fork mkdocs and go over your merry way.

[globular-toast]

Right, my suspicion was correct. When I interacted with them a few years ago they seemed perfectly nice and friendly, but seem to have gone off the rails more recently. It's an uncomfortable situation and I've a feeling people are afraid to discuss this kind of thing but we really need to. People are a risk factor in software projects and we need to be resilient to changes they face. Forking is the right way, but places like GitHub have sold people on centralisation. We need to get back to decentralised dev.

[znpy]

> but places like GitHub have sold people on centralisation. We need to get back to decentralised dev.

I don’t think that’s the case. It’s more of a marketing/market incentive. It’s great pr to be associated with the most famous project, way less so to be associated with a fork, at least until the fork becomes widespread and well recognised.

GitHub does make it fairly easy to fork a project, I wouldn’t blame the situation on github.

[globular-toast]

Just look at how much of the drama is caused by who "owns" the repository. In a decentralised model, which git perfectly supports, everybody owns their own branch(es). But all the issues etc. are stuck on the GitHub project.

[znpy]

> In a decentralised model, which git perfectly supports, everybody owns their own branch(es). But all the issues etc. are stuck on the GitHub project.

yeah i'm gonna call BS on this. this kind of drama already existed when communities were "decentralised" and each one had its own forum, mailing list or whatever.

the core of the issue here is about wanting to be the owner of a repository.

so people should just not bother with being owner of a specific repository, but just fork it and move on. and github supports forking sufficiently well for this purpose.

[globular-toast]

There are two main problems with "just fork" on GitHub and other forges:

1. Issues, PRs, discussions etc don't move over,

2. Discovery. When GitHub was in its infancy they made a big deal out of the "network" feature. Almost 20 years later it has languished, virtually unchanged in that entire time. When I think of decentralisation I think Bitcoin. We need a better way to "discover" the consensus fork. I feel like GitHub could do a lot to help, but they don't care.

[kurtis_reed]

Who are they?

[globular-toast]

As far as I can tell, the following names all refer to the same person:

- lovelydinosaur,

- Mia Kimberly Christie

- Kim (Christie)

- Tom Christie

[rglullis]

Drama around Starlette. Drama around httpx. Drama around MkDocs. I just hope that DRF is not next, I still have some projects that depend on it.

[mananaysiempre]

Per TFA, there’s similarly-shaped low-key drama around DRF too[1] although issues and discussions have been reënabled since then.

[1] https://github.com/orgs/encode/discussions/11#discussioncomm...

[forkerenok]

What's the drama around starlette? (Can't find anything)

[mananaysiempre]

https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3180 and before that https://github.com/Kludex/starlette/issues/3042

[noirscape]

I think that may be the first time I've seen licensing drama over something as minor as adding another author to the copyright list.

Pretty sure those are completely standard for major changes in maintainers/hostile forks/acknowledging major contributors. I've seen a lot of abandoned MIT/BSD projects add a new line for forks/maintainers being active again in order to acknowledge that the project is currently being headed by someone else.

From my "I am not a lawyer" view, Kludex is basically correct, although I suppose to do it "properly", he might need to just duplicate the license text in order to make it clear both contributors licensed under BSD 3-clause. Probably unnecessary though, given it's not a license switch (you see that style more for ie. switching from MIT to BSD or from MIT/BSD to GPL, since that's a more substantial change); the intent of the license remains the same regardless and it's hard to imagine anyone would get confused.

I suspect (given the hammering on it in responses), that Kludex asking ChatGPT if it was correct is what actually pissed off the original developer, rather than the addition of Kludex to the list in and of itself.

[mananaysiempre]

(Not a lawyer either but—)

The original author said they were “the license holder”, specifically with a “the”, in discussions around both Starlette and MkDocs, which yes, just isn’t true even after rounding the phrase to the nearest meaningful, “the copyright holder”. This appears to be an honest misconception of theirs, so, not the end of the world, except they seem to be failing at communication hard enough to not realize they might be wrong to begin with.

Note though that with respect to Starlette this ended up being essentially a (successful and by all appearances not intentionally hostile?) project takeover, so the emotional weight of the drama should be measured with respect to that, not just an additional copyright line.

[hitekker]

lovelydinosaur appears to be undergoing a mental health crisis. Besides the drama and lies, I notice they (I think they?) seemed to misname the maintainer on purpose. They did it in the first thread, which the maintainer tried to correct, and they misnamed him again in the second thread.

Mia Kimberly Christie seems like dangerous person.

[fastily]

This has been ongoing for some time. I’ve raised valid issues in several encode projects and received rude/dismissive comments from this individual. I’ve reviewed their recent interactions with others on GitHub and it’s obvious that Mia (tom?) is super toxic/drama seeking

[ldng]

They always were but it's clearly spiraling faster.