[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] Equality and leader team
Sat Feb 5 22:29:49 CET 2011
On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 12:22:33PM -0800, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 2/5/11 7:39 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 03:39:02AM -0800, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
> >> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Jason Garrett-Glaser <jason at x264.com> wrote:
> >>>> * Disband the leader team of 7 and return commit and decission power to all
> >>>> developers.
> >>>> Y Yes
> >>>> N No
> >>> What does this even mean? Just like all your "votes", this doesn't
> >>> make any sense and does nothing but beg the question.
> >>> "Disband the 7 committers", whatever that means, would mean we would
> >>> have no more committers on ffmpeg at all. I think this is a bad idea,
> >>> because without committers, there won't be any development. Perhaps
> >>> you wanted to vote on ADDING MORE committers, instead of REMOVING
> >>> them?
> >>> What does "return commit and decision power to all developers" mean?
> >>> How do developers not have "decision power" now that they had before?
> >>> I'm completely confused as to what this vote is supposed to be on --
> >>> and even more confused about what the actual technical consequences of
> >>> a vote on this would be.
> >>> Additionally, your vote is weasel-worded. Please stop doing this and
> >>> start being honest. If I have to give up my commit access to make you
> >>> start being honest, so be it -- I'd be happy to do it.
> >>> Jason
> >> Also, you yourself agreed on IRC (logged!) that we should have no more
> >> open votes -- that all votes should be by secret ballot to avoid
> >> politicking. What happened to that, exactly?
> > Could you quote the log?
> > Iam not against secret voting, and we can do that if people want
> > but i dont remember having said what you claim
> I'd like secret voting and I believe it would be a good idea given the
> current tense situation.
ok, how do you want to do secret voting?
The easy way is we pick a trustworthy person and every one voting sends him his
vote + a random keyword gpg signed
and that person then publishes vote + keyword pairs and independant a list of
that is like
This allows every individual to verify that he has been counted correctly but
it doesnt allow one to proof others have been counted correctly nor is this
leading to a clean resolution if something doesnt match up.
aka this fails if a single person claims something is wrong and in the current
situation i wouldnt exclude someone flasely claiming that
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel