Re: Path forward for Virtualized Swap?

[Chris Li]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 5:46 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 05:30:44AM -1000, Chris Li wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 5:07 AM Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 04:56:48AM -1000, Chris Li wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2026 at 4:43 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > People can speak for themselves and suggest other time slots. You do not speak
> > > > > for anyone but yourself here. At this point this is derailing the conversation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am expressing my opinion, freedom of speech. As you can see in the
> > > > previous discussion, Baoquan wasn't able to join that time slot. He is
> > > > a major shareholder in XSwap. I worry that alignment vswap vs xswap
> > > > without Baoquan is ineffective. That is my opinion.
> > >
> > > Actually, he said he is not sure if he can make it, and before Nhat
> > > could respond to that soft push you drew a hard line without actually
> > > proposing a workable alternative that made Nhat give up instead.
> >
> > Please consider that it is 1AM in Beijing if I remember correctly. I
> > don't consider that is a workable and reasonable ask.
> >
> > > So my free speech opinion is the same as Shakeel's: you're speaking
> > > for others and thereby derailing efforts to align on something.
> >
> > I sympathize with asking Baoquan to join a meeting at midnight.
> >
> > >
> > > We all want Baoquan in the room.
> >
> > In Chinese we have this saying: don't apply things to others that you
> > wouldn't want applied to yourself. Do you want to participate in a
> > technical meeting at 1 AM?
>
> Three emails in, you have rejected the proposed slot and proposed
> none, and your own conclusion was to drop the meeting and keep this on
> the list. That is not inclusiveness, it is a veto, and the outcome

You skip an important step. I raised the concern that the time zone
does not work for Asian developers; we should find a time zone
friendly to Asia.

Nhat still suggested the original time slot, disregarding my concern.
Which implicitly exclude Baoquan from the discussion. That is the fact
that you missed.

Then I suggested using email discussion instead, because the key
shareholder couldn't attend. There is no veto. I suggested the same
approach Nhat suggested. If you call my suggestion a veto, Nhat veto
first. Nhat issued the first veto. Mine was only a response to Nhat's
insistence.

> serves Baoquan and xswap worse than any hour of the day would have.

Baoquan can't make it at 1AM. It is not a reasonable ask.

> Baoquan said he was not sure he could make it. He is perfectly capable
> of declining himself, or of sending alternative timeslots to the list.

In Baoquan's own words:
"About the meeting time. I am in UTC+8. If the meeting is before 23:00
my time, I can join. If it is later than that, it is too late for me,
and I can only discuss in the mailing list."

He already made it very clear he will not be able to join that time
slot. It is not a maybe. It is a 'can't'. His reply was very clear
before you sent yours. I don't know what part of "not sure" you read
from his email. What is your motivation for twisting this?

Suggesting a 1 AM meeting without considering the time zone difference
is an understandable mistake. Insisting on that time, as Nhat and you
do, reveals more about you. Attacking me for point it out?

> You turned his "not sure" into a hard no on his behalf, then argued
> with everyone who pointed that out.

It is a hard no. 1AM is not a reasonable ask in the first place. Even
after I pointed out it is not Asia friendly, Nhat is still insisting
on it. That was before I suggested we discuss it via email instead.
Get your facts straight.

Chris

> Please reply with two or three specific windows in UTC that work for
> people not in US timezone. If they overlap with the other participants,
> we use one of them.