I am seeking for advice on how to deal with the following situation:
I am a senior engineer working for a collaborative software project between 2 institutes (not companies, we do not have the same constraints in term of money funding and economical results - maybe it matters). I am the technical lead of my local team, although our roles are not clearly stated in a document or something, it stays informal.
We are working with a remote team, in another country. A few months ago we started to disagree on the software architecture, we talked face to face and had a kind of agreement but when our pull requests came in, some were accepted, some not because of the architecture disagreement.
Indeed, in order to foster code review we accept their pull requests and they accept ours.
So we started to argue and to 'fight', actually I am defending my point of view and a developer from the remote team defends his point of view. I find he is not playing fair because he uses FUD and always mentions my approach to be 'risky', which is exactly what our project owners do not want to hear.
We had various Skype meetings, but he's stubborn and doesn't want to reconsider his point of view. I ask myself a lot and I am also convinced I am right... So we started a kind of 'crusade'.
Finally we had a tough email exchange - and he talked to his boss, who called my boss, and now they are taking the theatrical approach of threatening us into ending our collaboration. My boss here doesn't want to see the project getting forked, he wants to preserve our collaboration.
So I don't know what to do ? I will meet the remote team in a few days. I would like to try to overcome our architectural disagreement on the project, speaking with all the developers. I would like to give another chance to my ideas to get into the project because I am sure it offers the best trade-offs.
What would be the best way to deal with this situation ?