But when that is followed by an explanation outlining why they’re allowed to do what they did, and going forward they’ll try to make that more clear, how is one supposed to interpret the original apology and its intent?
The apology and the legal overview do not coexist well.
Aren’t people conflating two different things? Merging a PR when repeatedly asked not to until it got approved, and Microsoft moving repos?
Merging the PR is a personal failure for which she explicitly apologized for.
Microsoft moving repos is something that the organization has always said was possible. There’s not much to apologize there for. That has always been explicitly stated the rules.
The apology and the legal overview do not coexist well.