All, When conflict starts, it pretty much *always* starts with a misunderstanding.
So what is interesting here is not so much the technical merit, or otherwise, within this discussion, but the routes by which misunderstanding occurred and how it led to conflict. What can we learn from this particular occasion? What could any of us have done differently in our communication? What incorrect assumptions did any of us make? (Usually, in conflict, both sides are making incorrect assumptions). If this does have the same flavour as previous conflicts, what can we learn about collective communication? What (probably small) adjustments can we make? Often one small adjustment is to watch out for one's own belief in your rightness. I'm certainly often guilty of this. It closes me down to what others have to say. How can we spend more time reading/listening before we respond? Just some thoughts. Upayavira On Fri, 11 May 2018, at 1:14 PM, Carlos Rovira wrote: > Hi Harbs, > > really appreciate the new tone of your words. I think in that's the way to > reach consensus on things. I was feel attacked, and the final point was > Alex, in a position using words that should "make me understand the right > position". I sincerely know here nobody here is in the possession of truth, > but when people try to convince others in this way, I think there's no > dialog possible. > > I think all the problem is that before discussion Basic was just the basic > implementation or most "raw" way to do things. As you said, the basic > building blocks. After this discussion Basic sundenly becomes a piece in > the framework that we all must to use and can't avoid. I think that's wrong > by design. I think Core is what symbolizes that piece. and Basic is just > one more UI set, at least regarding on how is designed. Basic is not an UI > set library that has it's own CSS that Links lots of beads and styles to > the application that uses it. And Jewel is in itself a non dependent UI set > and is how I'm designing it with lots of hours invested in make it the most > simple, reusable solution that enforces PAYG, DRY and composition. There's > no point in make me embrace Basic for Jewel since there's no need to use > it. And that should be understood. I give lots of technical points as you > all requested, and hope all that previous emails will be sufficient for you > to reconsider the position of making all libraries in Royale obligated to > link Basic. I'll never would want Jewel make that, since I hope people > could get rid of useless dependencies and choose the pieces of code that > server their needs. > > About the Alex emails, although he wants to agree to the mantra, I think I > responded with sufficient valid points to expose that while I agree mostly > in the way he envisions royale. This concrete point of making Basic a Core > piece is not valid for me. > > So, I don't mind if finaly some pieces of Basic goes to Core, or if Basic > is splitter in two libraries. But the rest of the project should not link > obligatorily a library that enforces some CSS and beads if there's no need > of it. Maybe Core + some more part of Basic (lets's call BasicPrime), is > really the Core here, so for me if all libraries and applications must use > it, lets put all what's needed in Core. If you like more to split in Core + > BasicPrime, for me is ok as well although I think is the same as one Core, > and only will make things a bit more complex with two library core projects. > > And the end of this, and as you can see I think there's room to make more > things here. I only want one concrete thing and is to avoid the obligation > to link a library of a different UI Set that brings lots of things to a > Jewel App that should not be there due mainly to CSS and things that comes > with it. > > To resolve this, is far easy to move from the current point, that revert to > make this. And that can be done if we all work as a team. > > I'll be glad to help in all that I can, since I'm fully working all day on > this. But to do so we must to think that we all want things done in a > concrete way, and my point is that really we are not overlapping what we > need and all what all need have room in this project, since in the essence, > we agree in PAYG, composition and the overall structure. > > Hope this helps to calm things. Again, appreciate your tone and makes me > think all have solution here. Thanks > > > Carlos > > > > > > 2018-05-11 13:13 GMT+02:00 Harbs <[email protected]>: > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > I just took a step back and re-read the thread. I’m not sure exactly where > > things went off the rails. The discussion seems to be mostly technical to > > me. I’m sorry if you feel attacked, and I can tell you that I did not mean > > anything like that. I definitely appreciate all the work you have been > > doing. > > > > When I mentioned that my app was broken I was just explaining my > > frustration. My broken app is not a reason in itself to revert things and > > like I’ve mentioned quite a few times already, I did not mean that I would > > revert commits without consensus. I’m sorry if it was taken that way. If a > > refactor is the right thing to do and others agree, I am fine to go along > > with it. I’m not trying to push my own agenda if it’s wrong. > > > > As hard as it might be to accept, I truly don’t understand the technical > > drive to do the refactor. If others do understand it, I would be willing to > > go along with it even if I don’t. > > > > However, I’m not seeing that there is a consensus that the refactor is > > correct. I might have missed some other discussion before the refactor, but > > it was not clear to me before the fact that a refactor was happening. > > > > No-one is trying to destroy others’ work and I don’t think there are any > > personal attacks going on here. We simply need to come to a consensus on > > whether the refactor is the right way to go or not. This should not be a > > personal disagreement at all. I think we all generally work well together. > > If you feel strongly that it’s the right thing to do, then please try to > > find the words to convince others of that. Alex asked some good targeted > > questions. That seems like the right place to figure this out. > > > > I hope we resolve this soon, > > Harbs > > > > > On May 11, 2018, at 12:53 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > in writing this to summarize all the problems, far beyond code, that we > > are > > > living in the "Container Change" thread. > > > > > > We're repeating the same pattern with the same problems we had in Apache > > > FlexJS project. Now that we created this new project Apache Royale, I > > > though we'll be not living the same, but the problems are here. And are > > > exactly the same problems. The difference is that only a subset of > > > contributors are the same, so maybe the problems at that time wasn't > > > exactly as we thought? I must say that at that moment I was not part of > > the > > > discussions, so not part of that subset. You all can get your own > > > conclusions from this new discussion. > > > > > > For me the fact that a PMC member state that he's "going to revert" > > > something that is working only based on how this affects at its own > > > personal application code is simply not acceptable at all. This already > > > happen in FlexJS, and with the same person. This is not the project of > > > anyone here. Is an Apache OS project and for that reason we cann't make > > our > > > changes thinking in a single one application. > > > My changes are not motivated to match a concrete application, but to > > serve > > > the general purpose of this technology. > > > > > > In that thread, people asked me about "technical motivations". I > > expressed > > > various times a significant populated list of points based on the core > > > points that are part of our nature (PAYG, DRY, composition, and more...) > > > and even some significant improvements that we get after the refactor: > > > reduced size in *all* example applications that use Jewel about a 40%, > > > avoid collisions with other UI sets that do the same, and many others > > that > > > I don't want to repeat here. > > > > > > Then I asked for a list of the same "technical motivations" to have Basic > > > present in all applications made with Royale. And the only motivation was > > > not technical was: "since we did in this way before and we don't want to > > > change this". So completely philosophical. > > > "Why I must to link or depend from Basic? response: Since we did always > > in > > > the same way..." ¿¿?? > > > > > > The thread was asking me the same things although I was all the time > > > responding to the same in different ways to make people understand all > > the > > > implications, and provide my support to make changes and help with any > > > issue. But the response continues to be: "No. My application is broken > > and > > > I want to revert your changes" (a.k.a, my application is more important > > > that the Apache Royale project and I think I can dictate how we should > > > proceed) > > > > > > For me this is some kind of dictatorial way of doing things, and not the > > > apache way. > > > > > > This makes me change my way of doing things in this list though the > > > thread..., since people here is "dictating" certain things, I think, I > > have > > > the same rights than them, so my commit was done in the right form. Since > > > as the rest of members in this project, I created a branch, and made two > > > commits, and then merged. Could be this discussed more? Yes, but the same > > > as with any other commit here. I used to discuss previously, and I used > > to > > > ask for inputs, acceptance, and more (Something that I don't remember in > > > all committers) . This time, I'm so sure that the change was the right > > one, > > > that I committed in the same way you all do when you think the change is > > ok. > > > > > > Now that people is using dictatorial ways, I think I'm opposed to discuss > > > my commit. Or if we want to discuss it, I first would want to discuss > > many > > > others commits that I'm not conform, but I left in my philosophy of "live > > > and let die". I think when people dictates things the way to proceed > > should > > > be the same. > > > > > > I feel attacked, and don't know why. I think I already make merits in > > this > > > project so people could trust my work: > > > > > > * MDL: was a library I started and develop in a huge part with the help > > of > > > Piotr. And I started and finished until the end, while other UI sets are > > > still or incomplete or are only experiments > > > * AMF: I worked as well in this part to make sure we had something that > > > people on the list has expressed they need. > > > * JEWEL: I'm creating alone a complete UI set that looks polished to be > > > used in production. > > > * Compiler: I finaly are knowing how to do things there and I finaly > > fixed > > > many things specially on CSS. > > > * Maven: As well I'm more familiar and solved many problems in building, > > > some arise thank to this refactor. > > > * Website: I develop all the website alone > > > * Blog Examples: I'm creating one or two post to engage the community > > > * Social Networks: We have now Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and LinkedIn > > > working and moved continuously only by me, and getting a good traction. > > > > > > I'm working fully on this project from many months (8-12 hours day), and > > > what I get is a person that is frustrated since my change broke his > > app... > > > a co-mate working in his app ask about some changes (although I don't see > > > real align to one or another line, but assume that if asked he's in the > > > same boat that the first one), other people join to the discussion to > > then > > > apologize to me privately and personally, and finally other PMC members > > > only gave me a reason non technical that thing was "as is" from the > > > beginning. > > > > > > I'm all for communication, and I'll be spending all the time needed in > > this > > > point to go forward and fix whatever is not working. But the current way > > is > > > not the way to go. I can go back from now on and ask about how people > > > thinks about things I want to do. I usually do (The latest was about > > > spending facebook donation, how, when,...), but demand the same for > > others, > > > and end this kind of dictatorial ways of managing things, we are all in > > the > > > same boat, there's no leader here, there's no boss here, there's only an > > > Open Source project that at least I want to make it shine and we are > > > loosing our time with the noise generated by a single person and his > > broken > > > app, instead of joining the effort to make all working ok and that we all > > > get all the requirements we all want, we are trying to impose things > > while > > > my changes are done to get more freedom. I'm against that dictatorial way > > > of doing things. > > > > > > People that doesn't want how I'm designing Jewel, can simply not use it, > > > and can make it's own UI Set in parallel, stick with Basic or whatever > > they > > > want. As well I'm for "Live and Let die", I expect the same from the > > rest, > > > and only help when is required to help the project. I'm not forcing > > > anything in this project to make people need Jewel, while others want we > > > depend obligatorily from Basic and that's not needed.Having the > > possibility > > > to make people choose what they want and not force anyone to use what > > they > > > don't want (in this case Basic) is crucial. I don't plan to mess more in > > > Basic, since I want to avoid this situations > > > > > > So, I'll be one last time asking here to reconsidere how things are > > > managed, how things are asked, avoid unilateral actions that destroy > > > other's work. > > > > > > I propose to left the discussion to cold this weekend. Hope people return > > > on Monday with the motivations restored and want to continue forward, > > left > > > the discussion and we talked about how to fix whatever build is broken, > > > plan to release, do more work on social netiworks, publish new blog > > > content, follow working on Jewel, MXRoyale, and more. > > > > > > Let me know, what you prefer. > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > http://about.me/carlosrovira
