>>It sounds like it's not really about ActiveVFP but your policies running it? You claim to be a foxpro community project and open source. It sounds like you have disregarded community input and acted unilaterally in dumping a project you had previously mentioned as one of SednaX's flagships.

We did receive and consider community feedback, not only on ActiveVFP but on what SednaX should be working on in general. We carefully weighed what was presented and the reasons for and against including ActiveVFP as part of SednaX. As for ActiveVFP being one of SednaX's flagships... that's not quite truthful is it? Here is a verbatim quote of the original news announcement that I wrote...

"It should be mentioned that a number of individuals that have their own open source VFP projects have been contacting SednaX and expressing an interest in having their projects become a part of SednaX. The latest was Claude Fox and the ActiveVFP project. Given the quality of the different projects that are being looked at for inclusion, it is great news for Visual FoxPro developers and certainly SednaX. If you have a Visual FoxPro project that you would like considered for inclusion in SednaX, please don't hesitate to contact one of the SednaX site administrators. We'd be happy to consider making your project for possible inclusion."

I had posted a news item out on SednaX shortly before this asking 3rd party vendors to submit their projects. That, in hindsight, was a mistake. I take responsibility for that, and had I thought through this more thoroughly all of this with the ActiveVFP project could have probably been avoided. However, once the inherent problems with including and/or appearing to endorse certain existing 3rd party products over others was identified, steps were taken to correct the problem. Every vendor, save ActiveVFP, that has had their product/project rejected has said they can understand our position and that they would still like to help with SednaX in whatever way they can. Can I understand why Claude or others might be disappointed by the decision we made? Sure. Does that make me rethink our decision? No, the decision we made was absolutely the right one for SednaX.

>>Also, it sounds like you are not adhering to any kind of Open Source definition. So, I would tend to agree with Claude.

I'm not sure what your definition of Open Source is, but the license that governs SednaX projects is on the Code Gallery site and the projects will include the source code. If Open Source to you means that anything that includes source code must be accepted and that there is no way for the Visual FoxPro Community to control the overall content or direction of SednaX, then I would agree that we're not meeting your definition of Open Source. It appears that you wholeheartedly agree with Claude and you are certainly free to that opinion, no matter how much I may disagree with it.

>>BTW, it also sounds like Ken Levy is having an ongoing influence in running SednaX.

I'm not sure how that would be a bad thing, but for the record, I offered Ken Levy an administrative position on SednaX and he turned me down, saying that he was just a member like everyone else. To my knowledge, before this thread, Ken never weighed in on the ActiveVFP project. I am heartened that he doesn't see an inherent flaw in the reasoning behind our decsion or the decision itself. I certainly respect his experience in this area and were he to make a suggestion regarding SednaX, it would be given due weight.

There's really not much else I can add to this discussion Joel so this will be my last post here. You are obviously quite passionate about ActiveVFP and vehemently disagree with the decision we made and the policies governing SednaX. I respect your passion and your right to a differing opinion, and appreciate the thought you've put into your posts and the issues you've raised. I wish Claude all the best with his framework, and trust that it is providing value for the Visual FoxPro developers that are using it and the customers they serve.