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

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Wed Dec 16 20:40:50 CET 2009

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 02:59:25PM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Wednesday 2009-12-16 12:05:32 +0100, Diego Biurrun encoded:
> > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:00:39AM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> [...]
> > > 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.
> > 
> > > 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...
> > 
> > > 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'm fine with stopping the vote and refine the voting procedure.

> For example we could make explicit the difference between the official
> name (which has to contain "Foundation", "Organization" etc. etc. no
> abbreviations) and the shortname we'll daily use when referring to it,
> and specifying the domain to be used, which may default to
> "lc($shortname)).org", so that a name proposal have to explicitely
> define all these.

Well, truth is you (or anyone else) could have proposed such perfectly
clear and explicit combination when we asked for name proposals
you did not

You also could have now voted for such a clearer explict combination even
when its not on the official list
you did not

> Also I'd like a more "fuzzy" vote system, when the points are not set
> in base of preference order but explicitely assigned by the
> voter.

what you say is not a well defined request

> This would allow to address in a more fair way scenarios of the
> type: "Well all these candidates are great, but I really can't say
> which I prefer", or "all these candidates bloody suck, but these two
> ones suck less".

This is perfectly well supported by the preference system, heres the lists
for the 2 examples:

1 gandhi
1 ghostbusters
1 pizza
2 further discussions


1 further discussions
2 gandhi
2 ghostbusters
3 pizza

the idea here (which debian uses too) is to have a default option which
generally means further discussions.

Things you prefer over further discussions are things that you "approve"
Things you rate below further discussions are things that you "dont approve"
if the majority prefers "further discussions" then thats what happens

[and yes our software can handle it already, all the vote haters please
 go and vote everything below "further discussions" if thats what you want]

> Then if the most voted names have the same number of points, the
> majority of the board members could have the final choice.
> While the new vote procedure is decided, we could propose new names
> (which have to be checked and match all the assigned criteria), then
> have another week for voting.
> This would delay the NGO setup by some more weeks, since this is being
> discussed IIRC at least since this summer that shouldn't be an issue.
> What's the other voters position?

1. If anyone wants to discuss voting systems, do it
2. If anyone wants to discuss other names, do it
3. If we have a majority in favor of extending to voting period we will
4. If we have a majority in favor of throwing the votes away and starting
   from scratch fine we will
5. in absence of 3 || 4 i assume people prefer the "now" over thr work of
   redoing it


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

If you really think that XML is the answer, then you definitly missunderstood
the question -- Attila Kinali
-------------- 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/20091216/34124e76/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list