3 ms·
> If you're not willing to give a concrete step by step post mortem of how such a clusterfuck happened, the community should (and I'm sure does) feel at liberty
by syrusakbary 6y ago
> If you're not willing to give a concrete step by step post mortem of how such a clusterfuck happened, the community should (and I'm sure does) feel at liberty to not believe you in the slightest. You don't owe them an explanation, they don't owe you their trust.
Agreed, perhaps that's the best way.
> Wasmer the company might have been announced November 12 2019, but the open source project was around a year before that. I don't know what happened prior to that date to make the Bytecode Alliance members want to "veto" you as you put it, and maybe you're entirely blameless for that. As you point out, your trademark shenanigans hadn't taken place yet. But saying the "veto of Wasmer happened the same day it was announced" is misleading at best.
I think you misunderstood. I meant that Wasmer itself was vetoed from joining the Bytecode Alliance the same day that the Bytecode Alliance was announced. Wasmer was founded way before (as a company and a open-source project).
> But you appear to be quite bad at getting along with people.
It's curious this is the impression caused. I'm definitely not someone with low social skills.
EDIT: added an extra response
- reitzensteinm 6y agoI'm sorry, I did indeed misunderstand that. You were clear, I just parsed it wrong. So the criticism in that paragraph is undeserved, I've removed it for clarity but will leave it here for posterity. > Wasmer the company might have been announced November 12 2019, but the open source project was around a year before that. I don't know what happened prior to that date to make the Bytecode Alliance members want to "veto" you as you put it, and maybe you're entirely blameless for that. As you point out, your trademark shenanigans hadn't taken place yet. But saying the "veto of Wasmer happened the same day it was announced" is misleading at best.