# Frontend event triggers: timeline & reflection
I’d like to provide more background on the frontend event triggers PR ([aragon/aragon.js#361](https://github.com/aragon/aragon.js/pull/361)) which Jorge discusses in his original post, the issue that had recent tension between our teams.
Here is the timeline of events, based on my recollection:
* Autark working on the feature was brought up in the All Devs call on Aug 19 2019 -https://wiki.aragon.org/all_aragon_devs/meeting_notes/alldevs20190819/
* PR was submitted August 20th - https://github.com/aragon/aragon.js/pull/361#issue-308857353
* Brett provided two high-level comments the PR on September 1st, and Kevin replied about its urgent need.
* Reflection: Kevin could have done better here in asking Brett more detailed comments to gain a better understanding of what the expectations are.
* The PR and difficulties of repo management was brought up in September 2, 2019 All Devs call - https://wiki.aragon.org/all_aragon_devs/meeting_notes/alldevs20190902/
* I left the meeting and had these thoughts — “How can we properly convey the message that we need Aragon One’s help - whether it's in merging what we have now or developing the solution with better architecture? Maybe a memo will help communicate that we need help figuring out what to do and that it impacts launch dates.”
* We began drafting a memo, but it took about a week to write and review. I wanted to get it perfect so that Aragon One can see the urgency of the situation. The memo was circulated internally to Aragon One on September 10, 2019 - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GNhLZtYu7vIodVOXckY_4ihHdE4aaheDzBUigPBnWl0/edit#
* It wasn’t received well from Aragon One (we delivered it the week 0.8 was finally launching, obviously bad timing, but what could we do?). I will let Aragon One chime in more about how they perceived it, but I assume based on recent events and the original post, the option to fork was deemed as a threat. (We shouldn’t have used the word `fork`, we meant more like use code that is a few commits different until we can figure out best solution for development. Maintaining another repo was not our intention.)
* Regardless, on September 12, 2019, Brett responded to us that the solution we should opt for was Option C, where Aragon One (Brett) will help deliver the feature for us.
* On September 16, 2019, the PR was brought up again in the All Devs call and Brett said he would complete it that week.
* I missed the all devs and was on PTO, and when I returned on the 19th, I was confused about the resolution. Luis and I had tense moments because I said "Do you have time to chat related to the release? I think we may just have to go with a custom client implementation"
* I didn’t have the full picture that Brett said he'd be developing the feature during the 16th all devs call, which also happened to be the week he was going on PTO.
* I think there was tension with regards to Brett working during his PTO, since he worked so hard during the 0.8 release cycle.
Autark could have done better here to dive deeper in addressing Brett's comments in the PR. The mentality when putting Option C on the memo was “Maybe they would just have time right after 0.8 launched to help for a few days? Maybe that will be more efficient, maybe they think so too?". It's been difficult to get a few of our other aragon.js PRs merged so we weren't sure if we'd be able to get it right or how long it would take.
I’m not sure how much of Aragon One’s time Option C was. We just assumed that option should be included, because it may have been the most resource efficient and help Autark get to finish line faster, which is a move that is beneficial for the Network at large. Based on Jorge's post it seems asking for Aragon One's help when we are in an emergency type situation isn't how they work ("I'm sorry, not sorry)"? Hmm, that is what I find frustrating. I think collaboration is important to strengthen our bonds.
Whenever we proposed the aragon.js fork (Option D), we did not think of it as a threat. Calling what we were proposing a threat seems a bit extreme and paints Autark to be some kind of enemy. We never received direct feedback that option D was deemed as threatening or that’s on a blacklist of Flock software development shipping strategies.
Brett, I hope I didn't mess up on the timeline of events too much, but please comment in this document & provide any clarifications if you have any. I hope you don't see this as a blame game, but instead a recollection of events to clear the defamation represented in the original post. I see the takeaways as:
1) Autark could have tried harder to determine and develop the ideal archictecture.
2) There aren't enough resources for aragon.js maintainership.
3) There were no threats.
I would love to organize a meeting with everyone involved in this incident so we can talk about it in a more constructive way. I personally wouldn't want Autark to just abandon contributining to aragonSDK (our OWL leg has gotten a few PRs merged), but if we implement processes such as Brett's [product development pipeline](https://forum.aragon.org/t/aragon-client-product-development-pipeline/1142) then I think this will start to improve how we collaborate.