Frans de Boer
Sat Feb 5 05:08:23 CET 2011
On 02/05/2011 04:18 AM, Luca Barbato wrote:
> On 02/04/2011 10:29 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
>> As always M?ns is a very poor choice to be the spokes person for the
>> ffmpeg community.
> Mans speaks for himself, I do speak for myself.
>> He has demonstrated again and again that he can't deal
>> with criticism, has no demonstrable social skills and is not interested
>> in the community other then developers. Users, integrators etc are of no
>> concern to him.
> I had been in the gentoo council for years, I had been leader for the
> gentoo/ppc subproject for years, I'm using ffmpeg for my pet streaming
> project. As distributor and user I'm fully aware of the issues, so is
> mans even if now the are people trying to play the character
> assassination game.
> Mans is direct but he has no problems saying that he's wrong.
> Still Mans is just one among the others. Each of us came from a
> different background, all of us did and is doing his best for ffmpeg
> within his capabilities.
Ok, I am willing to accept the differences between you and Mans and as
such accept that Mans is .... just different and act/respond in his
Q: Who is the real spokesperson for the FFmpeg community today?
>> Many projects depend on ffmpeg, so - in my view - the ffmpeg community
>> has build a responsibility towards those projects. The split up is still
>> a question why, but steering towards a real split does not seem to be
>> the best solution.
> We (me, ronald, mans and the others) daily speak with projects using
> ffmpeg in a way or another, why do you think we are less capable to take
> account of that? Our (the committers) job is to make sure the patches
> gets in once accepted, or do not get inside if rejected we aren't that
> much steering power as committers, nor as root.
I did not say that. I just ask the question others have revealed to me.
I hope you refer to showing responsibility towards other projects with
regards to stability and allowing time to adhere to changing API's.
> You might consider that have some power but is just because we propose
> things, we implement things and usually we get to find an agreement with
> a number of people on what could be worth implementing and help and get
> helped achieve that.
> We didn't force commits and even ask to disable automatic checks to
> commit unsuitable code, somebody did and got demoted, for me is that
> simple and that's the freshest glaring abuse of position from Michael.
Beside the above, my original questions regarding why the "coup" and
stability of the program are not answered, unless I miss something?
The current people involved - like yourself - are implying that Micheal
has "abused" his position. That accusation in itself need to be
explained as you see fit. To hear both sides is important to bring peace
an hopefully consensus among the ffmpeg community.
If he (Michael) did abuse his position, it needs to be proven.
However, I would like to stress that continuity of the ffmpeg project is
more important that the question of abuse or, for that matter, who has
More information about the ffmpeg-devel