ok Piotr, I don't want to put words in your mouth for that reason I was trying to not introduce names. I think it was not right to introduce your name this time. So sorry for that.
So if you are in disagreement with my changes, I think you should expose why. Since you only expose the disagreement. But don't know nothing about how you get to that conclusion and how the changes affected to you to get to that conclusion. I just write a discuss thread to expose with graphs all motivations to make you all understand better all things. But I'm open to see that something I see clear as day is totally wrong for this project if that's what people wants. In that case for me will mean to go with my code and continue it alone, since is not what this community wants, as you said, if you, Harbs, and Alex, things after read the new discussion thread, that I still need to get Basic linked on Jewel Applications, for me the only option is left Royale and as you said fork it since I really need that change. Thanks for not becoming silent, and move your word here. Best, Carlos 2018-05-12 9:23 GMT+02:00 Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]>: > "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 > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
