Hi Alex, it's a shame read you email and saw nothing has changed. Instead I see that you want to tighten the rope. But ok, let's go:
2018-05-11 18:38 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > Carlos, > > Fundamentally, the misunderstanding is that you think you have provided > technical reasons and nobody else thinks so. It appears to me and others > that you are using a bug to justify a non-scalable coding pattern that is > definitely not DRY. > Can you explain where you think there's a bug ? I don't see any but anywhere this discussion is not about any bug. You're talking about unclear things ¿? Can you explain why you think my refactor is "non-scalable coding pattern that is definitely not DRY", I explain various times that in fact it is scalable and DRY. I think the proof that this is not true is now in your hands. > > I'm not sure I want to discuss the technical aspects of your changes in > this thread. I left what I think is a concise question for you in the > original thread. I suggest that we continue the discussion in that thread. > Don't know what question you refer, but I think I respond to all your questions. If not explain here what concrete question is not responded. Again very opaque phrase that seems to be done to insert some FUD in this discussion, so the opposite to help this get solved. > > IMO, consensus is an important value at Apache. The consensus is that the > approach you are taking is not correct. And socially, the response to > consensus saying that the approach you are taking is not correct should be > "oops, let me fix it quickly" or "oops, I'll revert and put it in a > branch". No, I was trying to help people (people here is Harbs, that was the only one that expressed problems, since we are still very few people and with things like that I'm afraid will be decreasing instead of increasing) with fixing anything that could be a problem, and to think that my approach can be modified so we all get what we want. I changed some things to make Harbs happy, but wasn't sufficient and he was upset with the change, what is normal when changes break your app and you find an unexpected problems. I understand that. But really I was doing "fix quickly" something since all was build perfectly. And as you stated, a refactor can make something broke eventually and arise a problem some time later. And I didn't revert nothing and didn't put anything on any branch. I think you are still in other page of this book. > No one individual is being a dictator here. Yes, you are, in the same way happens with other people here lots of time. And others at that time advise you about your tactics, and you continue to be in the same line. Nothing of what I said is valid for you and you only want to convince me that your arguments are the ones to follow. I think that is to be a dictator. And for that reason, instead of you asking me to convince you I prefer to do the inverse, since I don't see why you talk as if you where in the possession of the universal truth. > There are four of us who don't think your commit was the right thing, and > nobody besides you who thinks it is right. There's no four of you. There's you and Harbs, who seems now to be more tolerant to discuss things and get to some consenssus, while you still be in the position that I must to give you explanations, while you are who can't give us technical explanations. Piotr seems now not aligned to anyone anymore, but he prefers to be silent, and Yishay seems not positioned, although could move to Harbs position since are working on the same profesional team, so count as an "?". So that's You and Harbs mainly, and that's not a huge group of people. We are so few, but maybe I could gather more people that express what thinks about what is happening here, if you want. > If you are not open to the possibility that your approach is not > correct, then we definitely have a problem on our hands. Individuals who > cannot build consensus but still think they are right are having trouble > communicating, or are problem personalities. > I'm open to the possibility the same you are open to the same possibility. Although I feel attacked, and was very upset with the way things was handle yesterday, I put all the things in this email and seems Harbs changed to good tone. I see you are not doing the same, so you are an individual that doesn't want consensus, only wants to stick in your position. The difference is that I consensus, and want people respect a mixed solution since I think no body is right and there's many ways to solve things. In this email you state clearly that you want that I embrace your opinion 100%, but that's not possible, since I think you are wrong in making all Royale depends on Basic. So yes, I think we have a problem here. And I think is not for Piotr, Yishay or Harbs, but only for you. Since you are doing the same you did with others in the past that are no more with us due to this kind of social behavior. Think that I never had a problem like this with any other member. You had the same problem with lots of people here. So for me the problem now is not about the code but to solve this social problem we have. I was not very happy with the way things was handled when we created Apache Royale. I think some people was banned from this project in a strange or hidden way and now I have clear, that the problem was not that people. Others left I though to not be involved in this kind of problems. So feeling that this is not a community and this is by no means an Apache community or the Apache style. I think Apache Royale is so important and we are creating a good project, but this kind of things arise from time to time, and the only common denominator here, Alex, is you. Sorry to reach to this conclusion, I respect so much your work and how you do many things, but the way you manage discussion and your way of not accepting any change that does not come from you is it is certainly discouraging. You where named a dictator for other person in FlexJS project, at that time, I thought he had some reason, now I think he was right. Carlos > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 5/11/18, 6:55 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of Carlos > Rovira" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> > wrote: > > Thanks Upayavira, > > for you thought, I think very well brought. I'm fact think that most > of the > things you described was happening here. I tried to do my best to > explain > lots of time with different words the reasons, maybe much people here > are > very busy an some explanations was read "from above". I'm for > explaining > more times if is needed, but as well I think we all need in the point > that > no body is in posession of truth and that we can get a consensus with a > mixture of all the points. I'm more on this. I think this is not a "one > thing or the other", in this conflict, like in the rest we can have, I > always target for a mixture that makes all people happy, at least in > this > conctrete problem we can get to it. > > Thanks > > > 2018-05-11 15:45 GMT+02:00 Upayavira <[email protected]>: > > > 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 > > > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% > 7C68a39fc1a1ac4c6e7a7308d5b746cee4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636616437110115902&sdata=GBUHO%2BzEdYQ5ydYry1CSTUIBt% > 2BR1c4AZtjpsemoZ9ns%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Rovira > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% > 7C68a39fc1a1ac4c6e7a7308d5b746cee4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636616437110115902&sdata=GBUHO%2BzEdYQ5ydYry1CSTUIBt% > 2BR1c4AZtjpsemoZ9ns%3D&reserved=0 > > > > > > -- > Carlos Rovira > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com% > 7C68a39fc1a1ac4c6e7a7308d5b746cee4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de > cee1%7C0%7C0%7C636616437110115902&sdata=GBUHO%2BzEdYQ5ydYry1CSTUIBt% > 2BR1c4AZtjpsemoZ9ns%3D&reserved=0 > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
