[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] please vote for our NGO name

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Wed Dec 16 14:36:38 CET 2009

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:05:32PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:00:39AM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > On date Wednesday 2009-12-16 02:33:14 +0100, Diego Biurrun encoded:
> > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:23:15AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > we can't agree on a name for our fancy new non-profit org, so we want
> > > > YOU to help us choose a name. Voting is open to all developers /
> > > > contributors with an SVN account at svn.ffmpeg.org.
> > > 
> > > My vote:
> > > 
> > > > You can choose between the following names:
> > > > * Free Multimedia Tech / freemediatech.org
> > > 
> > > I vote for using proper words, not abbreviations.
> > > 
> > > > * FFMTech (Foundation for Free Multimedia Technologies)
> > > 
> > > I vote for "Technology", not "Technologies".
> > > 
> > > > * FFmedia (Foundation for Free MultimEDIA)
> > > 
> > > I vote for free beer instead of free adult Flash movies.
> > > 
> > > > * OMF (Open Multimedia Foundation)
> > > 
> > > Dominik suggested a better name than this one.
> > > 
> > > > * FFm.org (Foundation for Free Multimedia)
> > > 
> > > I vote for names without top-level domains in it.
> > > 
> > > > * FFmpeg Foundation
> > > 
> > > I vote for a name not specific to FFmpeg.
> > >
> > > > * FFMF (Fast Forward Multimedia Foundation)
> > > 
> > > I vote for fast reverse on voting procedures.
> > 
> > Some of these objections are IMO valid, but the question is: why
> > didn't they have been arised when both the names and the voting
> > procedure was discussed?
> 1) I don't currently have time to reply to every email in realtime.
> 2) The objections *did* get raised, but were promptly ignored when the
>    voting started, i.e. all the bad names were put up as candidates.

You can express your objections in the vote like everyone else by ranking
names you object to worse than ones you do not object to.

Also suggesting another name required just 2 developers, this did not happen
What iam trying to say here is that noone not just not you proposed other
So it seems to me the existing options cant be that bad

But i have good news for you, our software is perfectly able to handle
later added options, if you just vote for the names you like, the code
will count it. But please if you (or anyone else) does, make it clear that
your changes to the name are really meant that way and not as typos of
the mainstream names. (its obvious if you list both mainstream and your
changes but if one doesnt then its ambigous)

Also if people wish to change their past votes to include the new options
they can do this. (please reply to your past vote you want replaced to
make it easier for me)

Though i must personally say that i see no problem in the set of names
that we do have.

> > I believe there has been a sufficient amount of time to discuss that
> > before the voting procedure began, objecting now is quite pointless,
> > also we decided to implement this voting system for the same reason
> > that to make everyone happy had proven to be impossible, also we want
> > this thing set up in a reasonable interval of time.
> What's the hurry suddenly?  It's not as if a few days or weeks would
> suddenly make a difference...

Iam not against extending the voting period by a week if someone proposes
new names that seem to have strong support in the actually cast votes.
But so far iam not seeing any new names that have support by more than a
single developer. And even they arent rated by their proposers with a number
before them which makes it impossible to consider them.

> > Anyway it shouldn't be impossible to review and fine-tune the winning
> > name to accomplish to some of your requests, for example:
> Why not do it right in the first place?  Why repair a situation after
> breaking it when there is no need to start broken?

I dont see a problem that would need any action from me ATM.

You seem to dislike voting in general, is there really
any comment you have about the names beyond that?

Either way as said, if there really is, people can vote for any name in
their mails, they can even now vote for different names, if they do not
there is (near) zero support for it. If there is real support the vote
period can be extended.

Also you can start a seperate vote about
Free Multimedia Tech vs. Free Multimedia Technology vs. Free Multimedia Technologies
Foundation for Free Multimedia Technologies vs. Foundation for Free Multimedia Technology
vs. Foundation for Free Multimedia Tech

Note btw, the obvious typo of MultimEDIA we will correct to Multimedia
unless people make it clear in their votes that they meant it uppercased
like that.

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give
it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For
even the very wise cannot see all ends. -- Gandalf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20091216/de227686/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list