"Royale people prefer to avoid discussion becoming silent (Piotr, Josh,...) , since they want to avoid to discuss with you."
I'm sorry Carlos, but I can't agree with such assertion!!! It is totally not true. Interacting with Harbs or Yishay on ApacheCon or in several other occasion is always the most productive one. My Silence: In the results of my disagreement or rather more concerns about your changes - I was touched personally - That's why I choose to be silent. I don't want to loose because I disagree with you. I wrote you personal email with apologise not for my disagreement but for my fork idea - which I think was too much. I apologise for that now again publicly. Piotr On Sat, May 12, 2018, 8:51 AM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > while appreciate that Upayavira is taking the time with this discussion, > and although "consensus" have exactly the meaning he is saying, I > understand that maybe here is difficult that 100% of people agree on a > concrete solution at 100%. What I expect is to get the best of both (or > all) worlds. That is what I'm pretending since the beginning as I stated in > lots of emails and as I tried with "fixing" issues (really not "fixing" > since all that I did worked flawlessly, but "adapt" to others inputs, > specially from Harbs). > > So Alex, yes, I'm not in possession of truth, and I can be wrong. But wrong > at 100% of my considerations? I'm think not. The problem here is that Harbs > and you demand me technical reasons, and I gave to both of you, and you > considered you was in the possession of the right way to do things at 100% > since you words and phrases was saying that your expositions was 100% the > way to go. So the discussion with you is that there's no discussion. > > If you expose things with phrases that states that is the way to go, this > is not a community, but a group where we have a member that must validate > all things going (a gate keeper), and that's not healthy. > > Regarding the problem, the motivations to not get consensus in my opinion > are many. And although I don't want to have consensus 100% (like Upayavira > proposes), I think the interest people showed was not as well right for the > project. About those interest: Harbs was upset by his app failing (what is > not something related to the project) and your didn't expose technical > points like me, just "because is how we always did", that is not technical. > So as many things in life, is not black, but is not white. > > Another point that was making things worse was that you came to the thread, > after long emails and discussion, without reading it carefully and asking > things I already commented many times, and in different forms. When I spend > a full day with this issue, and you came on that way, you can expect me > very upset. You came fresh after sleep, and with an attitude of "I'm going > to save the day". But the worst point, you came asking me and stating with > phrases that denote "you are wrong, and I'm not, and you must to explain me > why you want to do that". > > To make Apache Royale a *real* community, we should not have a gate keeper, > we must to enforce real discussion and be able to give, not 100% but lose > certain percentages in what we want to do. That's key in every negotiation, > you want something and the other want something as well, and negotiate to > get *part* of wha they want. Right now, in Apache Royale people prefer to > avoid discussion becoming silent (Piotr, Josh,...) , since they want to > avoid to discuss with you. > And that's not good. Instead of getting people add up, this project is not > taking off for years because people that wants to make significant advance > (Chris Dutz, Justin,...) where stopped by this kind of practices. And > that's mailing caused by you. That's not personal attack, I want you to > reflect in our recent history in FlexJS and now here and you can deny such > evidence. So I'm only asking in this concrete way of doing things that you > stop trying to control every thing in this project is such "dictatorial" > way. > > Alex, there's nothing personal here. I stated that I appreciate you but > need to expose the things like I did so we could get rid off this kind of > way of doing things and people would prefer to discuss instead of prefer be > silent to not face with this problems, and to have a healthier community, > since I think this project deserve it. > > You as me, are nothing more than members here, and we don't have to act > guarding anything, since if you incorpore other committers, you are giving > privileges to commit, and hence to make changes, and you trust in their > work. There's nothing more to that. So you don't have to "control" or > "model" as you said how the committers must contribute. If you think in > that way you are going to the gatekeeper/dictator model, and since we are > at Apache, that's not the way to go. > > You has earned all the respect of us since your contributions are > brilliant, and in that way as you write an email with an opinion is very > probable that almost all people here would adhere to your opinion, included > me. So that power means a great responsibility, since people could adhere > only because you earned that merit, but without thinking or knowing right > the real problem we are discussing. I think that in this concrete case, you > are not 100% in the possession of truth, and so for that reason we are > here. > > If you can think on that way, since I'm doing from the beginning, we have > discussion and we can go forward. If you focus in that all your points are > valid and contribute to a discussion in that way, with phrases that only > want me to validate my proposal while you don't do the same (as an equal to > me), then we have a problem. > > I'll be explaining with a schema the technical problems with the past > solution and how that problems are gone now with the current one, in the > other thread hoping this one will be different. > > Crossing fingers. > > Carlos > > > > > 2018-05-12 0:04 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>: > > > Upayavira, > > > > Please review the Flex archives where Bertrand advises that "consensus" > in > > a discussion like this only has to be "general consensus". Otherwise, > you > > allow rule by a single individual. In all 90+ emails on the original > > thread and this one, I don't recall any other individual writing in favor > > of Carlos's change. And that does make it appear that we are repeating > our > > history. For some reason, we've had other individuals decide to hold > their > > ground and call other people names despite clear lack of support for a > code > > or other change. We had a long thread with Carlos earlier about > > ClassList. It was resolved technically. I am holding out hope this > issue > > will be resolved technically as well. Then we won't be repeating our > > history. > > > > We have new contributors, one of which is now a new committer. How do we > > want to model for these new contributors about how to conduct themselves > if > > there is a disagreement? In every social group I'm in, the group > generally > > does what general consensus is (yes, there are exceptions). Individuals > > are expected to see that there is lack of support and either gather > support > > or defer to others. Otherwise, who is the dictator? Those who cannot be > > wrong are not good teammates. Nobody is perfect. I've made my share of > > questionable or incorrect decisions. If I'm the only one with a > particular > > opinion or people point out problems with something I did, I take my shot > > at convincing them otherwise, but I would like to think that after that I > > generally defer to the majority. I dearly hope we do not want to model > > that ignoring general consensus is the way to act. > > > > If you read the words in my last post carefully, you will see that I did > > not actually attack Carlos. However, I see that I should have chosen my > > words more carefully because I can see how he could see it as an attack. > > So my apologies for being careless. Instead I was trying to point out > to > > Carlos that he could be seen as a problem personality by not continuing > > with the technical discussion and not being open to not having his > proposed > > changes accepted. I was hoping that would open his eyes to being more > open > > about his proposal. Quite frankly, I'm still open to the possibility > that > > Carlos is right and we aren't understanding him or even that we are all > > actually in agreement but just aren't understanding each other, which is > > why I'm willing to continue the technical discussion and am going to > ignore > > all of the personal attacks. I am hopeful that Carlos will be open to > the > > possibility that his changes are not correct and that that outcome does > not > > make any judgement on Carlos the person. That's key to me: a flaw in my > > technical offerings does not mean there is some major flaw in me. I try > > not to take a dislike for one of my a code changes as a personal attack. > > > > I will try to summarize my understanding of the technical discussion on > > the original thread and continue the technical discussion there. > > > > My 2 cents, > > -Alex > > > > On 5/11/18, 12:30 PM, "Upayavira" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Alex, > > > > Just to note a dangerous comment below. You rightly note that > > consensus is important at Apache. Then you say that "consensus is" > because > > four of you agree. But Carlos doesn't, therefore it isn't consensus, > unless > > Carlos is a non-person at Apache - and I don't think that's somewhere you > > want to go!! > > > > Upayavira > > > > On Fri, 11 May 2018, at 5:38 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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 one individual is being a dictator here. There > > are > > > four of us who don't think your commit was the right thing, and > > nobody > > > besides you who thinks it is right. 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. > > > > > > 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 >
