[FFmpeg-devel] (trying to be) a voice of reason
Tue Mar 15 12:58:25 CET 2011
On date Tuesday 2011-03-15 01:55:37 +0100, Michael Niedermayer encoded:
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 08:48:24PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> > Le quartidi 24 vent?se, an CCXIX, Michael Niedermayer a ?crit?:
> > > I also thought it can be done, but simply voting for equality 14:1 had no
> > > effect, it was ignored.
> > You could have guessed it would be ignored before you even started it. The
> > main reason is: because it was you.
> > Some people have a strong dislike for you, personally. Anything you would
> > have done, they would have rejected.
> > In my opinion, you have shown yourself slightly more reasonable than them.
> > But only slightly: the sarcastic comments, the snide remarks, were too much.
> > If you care about the project, you must do an effort and be much more
> > reasonable than them, at least for the time.
> > Now, here is a simple question:
> > If someone you deem trustworthy organizes an unbiased proper vote, and the
> > result is not to your liking, would you:
> If its a vote with
> * long enough discussion periods,
> * people can add options (like for example in debian)
> * the options are discussed before vote
> * its a condorcet vote with single choosen option at the end (like for example in debian)
> * people seriously participate (no "no more vote" / "no more discussion" / i vote X only if stuff)
> * people are calm and its not 2 weeks after a large flame
> * the vote happens at a place where people can freely speak and are not banned or
> moderated if some admin percives them as troll or flame
> * all people who can vote must be informed about it and have a chance to
> participate in all discussions
> * all parties agree to also follow the result similarly,
> that is libav.org and what they technically control must also be under the votes control
I don't think this can be applied, after all this is a vote about
FFmpeg, who set up libav.org is free to continue with it, but the
point of the vote is to try to avoid the split and resolve the
conflict within FFmpeg, I want to believe that it's still not too
> * There are no behind the scenes lies+libel compaigns
> > a. surrender control of whatever you technically control to the new
> > appointed leadership, or
> > b. keep control of whatever you can and fight with any weapon at your
> > disposal?
> > Note that answering "a" does not prevent you, during the voting process,
> > from clearly stating "if this motion I do not like passes, I will leave;
> > heed my advice".
> I belive in democracy. If the result of the vote would tell me to give X
> up to Y i would either
> * Do it
> * Do it and leave
> PS: I assume of course common sense like no (give all your money to X)
And I want to add again that this shouldn't be considered a vote
against/in favor of Michael, FFmpeg != Michael, but it would be a vote
about the best policy for the project.
If that means that Michael will have to step back from the leader
position, abide by the rules of all the other developers, with no
special rights and privileges, let it be, and he already assured that
he will honor the result of the vote.
FFmpeg = Forgiving Friendly Magic Perennial Ecumenical God
More information about the ffmpeg-devel