[FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCE] New FFmpeg maintainership
Sat Jan 22 21:14:31 CET 2011
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 06:12:08PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:02:51PM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> > Hi Stefano,
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Stefano Sabatini
> > <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it> wrote:
> > > On date Wednesday 2011-01-19 01:58:53 +0100, Diego Biurrun encoded:
> > >> The discontent reached the point where a fork was being contemplated
> > >> and then planned, but it turned out that the momentum had soared way
> > >> past critical mass and turned into a tidal wave of revolution. ?The
> > >> focus moved from forking to avoiding a fork if possible.
> > >
> > > But unfortunately it never passed from considering to ask to the
> > > person/s which were considered the cause of the "problem" to change
> > > for the last time, or to discuss this publically, giving a chance to
> > > these persons to defend themselves, and eventually pose an ultimatum
> > > and act in the case they failed.
> > I've read this statement by various people in a variety of ways now. I
> > want to make something very clear: this is not true. I won't spill all
> > the details, but suffice to say that we felt that we tried enough and
> > that another approach was needed to advance.
> Ive heared the "I won't spill all the details" in various forms too.
> No offense intended but are the details unstable in presence of public scrutiny?
No, but I see little point (or even legitimacy) in disclosing the
details of private communication with you. Exposing all of it to
public scrutiny is likely to degenerate into mud slinging.
More information about the ffmpeg-devel