> 1) I made my decision clear during the whole process, I would accept the > embedding subject to some conditions, one of the major conditions was the > privacy/security issue. > > I have explained in several messages what I meant. You keep refusing the > existence of any problem without taking a compromise. Instead you took a > personal stance on any disagreement.
I guess it had something to do with the way your described it. You kept saying that the problem is with embedding, and I did not see it that way. You kept saying it was a security problem but did not provide any working scenario that demonstrates the problem. You proposed a session approach, but you did not want to hear my opinions on the drawbacks of it. (Quote: it is your working style). You also ignored my 'remove private data' proposal completely. Right now, after more people have been involved in the discussion, I have accepted Pavel's way of describing the problem: Embedding encourages sharing of lyx documents and exaggerates an existing problem. Even so, it is generally agreed that such information is too important to put in a session file, so it should be put in the .lyx file, maybe encrypted. > 2) In my messages I always tried a conciliatory tone in order not to aggravate > any further the problems generated. It seems that this tone was confused for > inaction or hesitation, it was not. A 'conciliatory tone' is not enough during a conflict. You are a project manager and when it is time for you to make a decision, you need to be firm. If you said that 'No embedding unless the blah problem is resolved', there would be less confusion. Also, I have asked you if you could propose a few key points that such a feature should try to achieve, but you ignored my email as well. > 3) The messages you sent suffered from a problem I had identified previously. > If you remember I have asked if any other program did what you intend. Since > none does you had to redefine some terms and kept using them through all the > messages. When someone was confused you implied/said that the person in > question was not able to read your messages carefully. This does not help any > discussion. Latex users work in the external style and OOo users work in the embedded style, an embedding feature needs to make some sort of compromise. OK, I admit that there is something novel, or unacceptable in my approach, do you ever realize that there is no existing approach that treats a file plus a directory as a document? It is another story, but I am still amazed on why I am the only one who consider a file + dir document unnatural. > 4) I have tried another approach by sending a personal message. If I send a > personal message I intend it to stay private. That meant also that my attempt > to get a compromise failed. I can not recall what you are referring to. Sorry. > 5) At a certain point you removed all the reference code implementation. I > have not object to that. Later you tried some more approaches, I have > cooperated in the different analysis. I certainly appreciated that, and I am grateful now. > 6) You made two further attempts to raise the issue while at the same time > rising the tone of your messages. The last proposal was certainly better than > the first due to the discussion done on the list. I also agree with this. In my first approach, I tried to achieve too much, i.e., global bundling (something required by the zip format) plus individual embedding. I reverted my approach for a number of reasons, but I did realize that my approach was more complicated than it should be. > In the last stage the difference between your proposal and Richard's was > simply the global versus the local nature of the embedding. I was expecting > that this detail could be defined through discussion. Yet your position was > highly confrontational and in my opinion your last move is just an attempt to > delay an implementation that you don't like. Frankly, I had little, if any, expectation that my proposal could to be pushed through. My last move was indeed my goal. I would like to repeat again that the difference is not between individual and global embedding, but the complicate and unnatural handling of filename.lyxdir. Which is the basis of Richard's approach. I certainly tried to let Richard realize that but he refused to look into the problems it causes. During the discussions, how I wish someone else, such as you, could step in and have a look at the issue, but everyone was just waited. :-( > 7) Since there are several limits that should not be crossed this morning > before reading yesterday's mail I had decided to postpone this feature to the > next development cycle. I was happy to see that this is the general feeling > among the developers. I followed the suggestions from Abdel and Jurgen before you made the decision. It was something I more or less expected. > 8) Technically after discussing so thoroughly this problem I think that an > implementation without the local choice for each inset even if basic (with > few features) could evolve during the different development cycles. An > evolutionary instead of a revolutionary approach to the problem. My understanding is that my approach is less revolutionary to users than Richard's, because it introduces a single concept and everything else comes together naturally. In contrast, a lot of things have changed with the introduction of filename.lyxdir and the bundled mode. We will come to this later. >> Lacking proper project management was one of the reasons I decided to quit. > > And I thought that it was because I look like Torquemada, because no one > expects the Spanish Inquisition. (For the humour impaired search for The > Flying Circus) Jose, I apologize if I had offended you. I respect you and what you have done to this project. I respect your security concern (if not the way you described it), and I appreciate your help for reviewing my second approach. However, although there is no definition for the role of a project manager of an open source project, I suspect that you are somehow responsible for maintaining a pleasant environment for the development process. When a discussion went wild on a day other than Friday, you may need to speak up. When a feature raised many objections, you may order its reversion (and think why it was allowed to develop in the first place). When some discussion hits a deadend, you may order a freeze or provide some guidance. I do not know how to describe it exactly, I mean, no matter what the source of problems were, if a major feature got reverted, lyx-devel was filled with unfruitful discussions, two developers were on the verge of quiting, and others were bored to death, there might be something you, as the project manager, could do. If I misinterpreted everything and none of these should be your responsibility, I hereby offer my sincere apology. Good night. Bo
