[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] Equality and leader team
Mon Feb 7 17:55:12 CET 2011
On 02/06/2011 02:17 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 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
>> 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?
No, this does not count as a vote for "disbanding the team". Adding
more people != disbanding.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel