[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] Equality and leader team
Sun Feb 6 20:03:08 CET 2011
On 02/06/2011 01:39 PM, compn wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 17:11:45 -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 5:07 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
>>> and really i want to resolve the problems with this vote and make both sides
>>> join forces.
>> I don't think the vote is helping to achieve this ("joining forces").
> this vote/idea would put everyone on the same tree ("joining forces").
> it would avoid having 2 trees. maybe this isnt fork-team's goal?
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 01:58:53 +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>> Everybody is welcome and invited to join the community to work on
>> FFmpeg, all past and present and future developers included.
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 12:24:36 -0800, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
>> The list, AFAIK, was chosen based on people who were experienced
>> enough and active enough (and willing) to be patchmonkeys for various
>> parts of ffmpeg.
>> I would have no problem with anyone else joining the list if they
>> satisfy those requirements.
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:33:13 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> I'd like to keep the current method for a bit longer and then see in
>> retrospect what should be fixed and what had been really better.
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 05:31:20 -0800, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
>> So we're now going to let everyone commit without review again? This
>> is inviting disaster.
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 18:08:33 -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> Disclaimer: I only speak for myself.
>>>>> stef,me,carl,reimar,baptiste joining commiters
>> Reimar & Baptiste: can certainly be discussed, I'm in favour of it
>> under certain conditions.
>> Stefano: that has come up before, Stefano's work may benefit from
>> being in a separate topic branch.
>> Michael: I see too much hostility to consider that an option, for now.
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 22:13:44 -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> Clarify what the conditions are? (1) I'd like to do this slowly, no
>> new 100 committers in the next year, or even 10. (2) I'd like you in,
>> but I'd like the general direction that we've "couped" this project
>> into to not change too much, for the immediate future. We have
>> problems and these need fixing. Anyway, I can see how this sentence
>> will lead to an enormous trollwar, so let me just summarize as
>> follows: (3) we all have ideas, that's great; I think we need to focus
>> on getting back to FFmpeg development before anything else. Actions
>> speak louder than words. If you agree with that and will help work
>> towards that common goal that I'm sure we all share, then you're
>> welcome in my eyes.
> forgive me if i missed any other commit talk, its a lot of mails to
For the record, I'm not against more developers having commit access as
long as we still require patches be sent to ffmpeg-devel and approved by
at least one other dev with knowledge in the area, with possible
exceptions or guidelines for disagreements.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel