There are other possibilities, for example, the person may have thought that they were complying with the MIT licence by releasing the new project under the MIT licence too + including a mention of the original project in the README.
This, of course, is incorrect, and a cursory read of the very short licence text would show it to be incorrect.
Hanlon's razor can indicate an absence of malice, but that doesn't mean what they did wasn't wrong, nor should Microsoft skimp on taking steps so it never happens again.
I agree on both points, and with the earlier comment:
> I would love to know what processes MS is considering to prevent this in the future as well as what kind of auditing might be done to look at other projects that started as forks.
In response to:
> ... going to make sure we improve our processes to help us be better stewards in the open-source community.
That's funny, thanks for sharing. I was watching his video where he's saying "you can see it right there, look how much calmer it is, it looks like ice" and was thinking "I don't know what he's talking about I don't see ... oh, that ice patch is water"
This, of course, is incorrect, and a cursory read of the very short licence text would show it to be incorrect.
But I, too, am strongly favouring Hanlon's razor.