[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] Equality and leader team
Sun Feb 6 20:17:40 CET 2011
On Sun, Feb 06, 2011 at 02:03:08PM -0500, Justin Ruggles wrote:
> 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
> > follow.
> 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.
This sounds to me like you agree with disbanding the team.
May i count this as a yes vote? or do you prefer if i count as abstain?
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and
there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up
some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader. -- Plato
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel