
Announcing .NET Foundation Open Membership - MikusR
https://dotnetfoundation.org/blog/2018/12/04/announcing-net-foundation-open-membership
======
jongalloway2
Hi, .NET Foundation Executive Director here, happy to answer any questions.
Also, check out Miguel de Icaza's post here for details and background:
[https://tirania.org/blog/archive/2018/Dec-04.html](https://tirania.org/blog/archive/2018/Dec-04.html)

~~~
redwards510
Can you point me (regular joe c# programmer) to some resources that show how
to contribute to .NET and start the path to membership? I'm guessing the
simple answer is "go to github, check out the latest branch of aspnetcore,
start fixing bugs in the Issues list and pray to god someone accepts your PR"
but somehow I imagine the barrier to entry is a bit higher than that. Thanks!

~~~
ocdtrekkie
I just want to point out that you will not need to pray to God to get a PR
accepted in a Microsoft repo if their docs team is any indication. They are
nearly aggressively professional at handling GitHub issues. Minor mentions of
confusions I've had on docs.microsoft.com were zealously assigned, pursued,
and fixed, and the PRs I submitted to the code samples there were approved
within a day or two.

~~~
GordonS
I've had the same experience with docs, but the polar opposite with .NET Core
FX and ASP.NET Core - seems any new features need to be discussed by
committee, and can take several months or even years before they will then say
"OK, send a PR", even for features that there is demand for.

Even for bugfixes, I've been really dissapointed in their responses - they
call _any_ change in behaviour a 'regression', and won't accept fixes, even if
the behaviour they want to preserve only exists as a side effect of the bug,
and nobody could possibly want in any case!

I write this as a .NET fanboi, but my negative experience of trying to
contribute to Microsoft's OSS projects has been left me dissolutioned.

------
oblio
Pretty cool! Considering the moves being made by Oracle, it would be awesome
if we get a super high quality, high speed, true FOSS platform from Microsoft,
originally, of all places :))

~~~
int_19h
The problem with .NET Core compared to Java is that it's still less portable
at the moment - it doesn't work on any of the BSDs, for example. Someone's
working on it, though.

[https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/18067](https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/18067)

~~~
setquk
The irony of this is the original CLR worked on FreeBSD at MSR before it
worked on Windows from what I heard. The original build toolchain was perl.

------
dgudkov
Paid members that can vote and elect the board is a very good model for online
communities in general. If it was adopted by Facebook or Google+ we could've
seen entirely different plot of story than what we have now.

------
setquk
I still can’t get over the mental anguish caused by using Telerik’s ASP.Net
control suite over ten years ago.

------
johnwilkinson
Hey Jon,

Why not move .net to Linux Foundation in a similar deal to Node.js? I think
.NET is really interesting technology but let's be honest most innovation
happen over JVM. Moving to Linux Foundation would create a lot of trust for
people who are not fond of Microsoft.

~~~
Zedronar
Actually most of the features that Java released over the last few years where
first implemented in C# (e.g.: Lambdas).

~~~
johnwilkinson
Well that's true. But, I am talking about interesting projects like Apache
Kafka, Spark or many other Big Data tools. Also many languages born in JVM
like Clojure, Kotlin or Scala. None of them came from oracle but in .NET all
the successful languages came from Microsoft. Mostly happens because many
people don't like Microsoft. That's why you don't see lots of startups using
.NET

~~~
wvenable
All the successful .NET languages come from Microsoft because they have some
of the best language designers and create some of the best languages. There is
no need for something like Kotlin on .NET because C# is already far ahead of
Java and F# is a great language.

~~~
jsmith45
I see two main reasons for all the JVM languages.

1\. People trying to make programming in the java ecosystem less painful.
(Java-the-language was stagnant for so long that this was the main way
improvements could be made).

2\. People who wanted to design a language, but not need to create a complete
runtime, need to make the runtime cross platform, and need to encourage a
large library ecosystem. (They could just leverage the existing java
libraries.

The first reason was never super applicable to .Net. The second would have
been applicable in the past except for "cross-platform". So .net never saw the
huge nnumber of languages. With .NET Core I suspect we will see more reason #2
languages.

