royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
Subject Are we repeating our recent history?
Date Fri, 11 May 2018 09:53:24 GMT
Hi,

in writing this to summarize all the problems, far beyond code, that we are
living in the "Container Change" thread.

We're repeating the same pattern with the same problems we had in Apache
FlexJS project. Now that we created this new project Apache Royale, I
though we'll be not living the same, but the problems are here. And are
exactly the same problems. The difference is that only a subset of
contributors are the same, so maybe the problems at that time wasn't
exactly as we thought? I must say that at that moment I was not part of the
discussions, so not part of that subset. You all can get your own
conclusions from this new discussion.

For me the fact that a PMC member state that he's "going to revert"
something that is working only based on how this affects at its own
personal application code is simply not acceptable at all. This already
happen in FlexJS, and with the same person. This is not the project of
anyone here. Is an Apache OS project and for that reason we cann't make our
changes thinking in a single one application.
My changes are not motivated to match a concrete application, but to serve
the general purpose of this technology.

In that thread, people asked me about "technical motivations". I expressed
various times a significant populated list of points based on the core
points that are part of our nature (PAYG, DRY, composition, and more...)
and even some significant improvements that we get after the refactor:
reduced size in *all* example applications that use Jewel about a 40%,
avoid collisions with other UI sets that do the same, and many others that
I don't want to repeat here.

Then I asked for a list of the same "technical motivations" to have Basic
present in all applications made with Royale. And the only motivation was
not technical was: "since we did in this way before and we don't want to
change this". So completely philosophical.
"Why I must to link or depend from Basic? response: Since we did always in
the same way..." ¿¿??

The thread was asking me the same things although I was all the time
responding to the same in different ways to make people understand all the
implications, and provide my support to make changes and help with any
issue. But the response continues to be: "No. My application is broken and
I want to revert your changes" (a.k.a, my application is more important
that the Apache Royale project and I think I can dictate how we should
proceed)

For me this is some kind of dictatorial way of doing things, and not the
apache way.

This makes me change my way of doing things in this list though the
thread..., since people here is "dictating" certain things, I think, I have
the same rights than them, so my commit was done in the right form. Since
as the rest of members in this project, I created a branch, and made two
commits, and then merged. Could be this discussed more? Yes, but the same
as with any other commit here. I used to discuss previously, and I used to
ask for inputs, acceptance, and more (Something that I don't remember in
all committers) . This time, I'm so sure that the change was the right one,
that I committed in the same way you all do when you think the change is ok.

Now that people is using dictatorial ways, I think I'm opposed to discuss
my commit. Or if we want to discuss it, I first would want to discuss many
others commits that I'm not conform, but I left in my philosophy of "live
and let die". I think when people dictates things the way to proceed should
be the same.

I feel attacked, and don't know why. I think I already make merits in this
project so people could trust my work:

* MDL: was a library I started and develop in a huge part with the help of
Piotr. And I started and finished until the end, while other UI sets are
still or incomplete or are only experiments
* AMF: I worked as well in this part to make sure we had something that
people on the list has expressed they need.
* JEWEL: I'm creating alone a complete UI set that looks polished to be
used in production.
* Compiler: I finaly are knowing how to do things there and I finaly fixed
many things specially on CSS.
* Maven: As well I'm more familiar and solved many problems in building,
some arise thank to this refactor.
* Website: I develop all the website alone
* Blog Examples: I'm creating one or two post to engage the community
* Social Networks: We have now Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and LinkedIn
working and moved continuously only by me, and getting a good traction.

I'm working fully on this project from many months (8-12 hours day), and
what I get is a person that is frustrated since my change broke his app...
a co-mate working in his app ask about some changes (although I don't see
real align to one or another line, but assume that if asked he's in the
same boat that the first one), other people join to the discussion to then
apologize to me privately and personally, and finally other PMC members
only gave me a reason non technical that thing was "as is" from the
beginning.

I'm all for communication, and I'll be spending all the time needed in this
point to go forward and fix whatever is not working. But the current way is
not the way to go. I can go back from now on and ask about how people
thinks about things I want to do. I usually do (The latest was about
spending facebook donation, how, when,...), but demand the same for others,
and end this kind of dictatorial ways of managing things, we are all in the
same boat, there's no leader here, there's no boss here, there's only an
Open Source project that at least I want to make it shine and we are
loosing our time with the noise generated by a single person and his broken
app, instead of joining the effort to make all working ok and that we all
get all the requirements we all want, we are trying to impose things while
my changes are done to get more freedom. I'm against that dictatorial way
of doing things.

People that doesn't want how I'm designing Jewel, can simply not use it,
and can make it's own UI Set in parallel, stick with Basic or whatever they
want. As well I'm for "Live and Let die", I expect the same from the rest,
and only help when is required to help the project. I'm not forcing
anything in this project to make people need Jewel, while others want we
depend obligatorily from Basic and that's not needed.Having the possibility
to make people choose what they want and not force anyone to use what they
don't want (in this case Basic) is crucial. I don't plan to mess more in
Basic, since I want to avoid this situations

So, I'll be one last time asking here to reconsidere how things are
managed, how things are asked, avoid unilateral actions that destroy
other's work.

I propose to left the discussion to cold this weekend. Hope people return
on Monday with the motivations restored and want to continue forward, left
the discussion and we talked about how to fix whatever build is broken,
plan to release, do more work on social netiworks, publish new blog
content, follow working on Jewel, MXRoyale, and more.

Let me know, what you prefer.

Thanks



-- 
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message