[FFmpeg-devel] [DECISION] Revoke the decision of dropping ffserver

[James Almer]

On 11/29/2016 5:41 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
> 2016-11-29 21:11 GMT+01:00 James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
>> On 11/29/2016 5:04 PM, Carl Eugen Hoyos wrote:
>>> 2016-11-29 20:38 GMT+01:00 James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Seeing Nicolas is apparently very invested in ffserver, can we expect him to
>>>> maintain it, improve and extend it if it were to remain in the tree?
>>>
>>> How is this related?
>>> For which part of FFmpeg can we "expect" anybody to maintain it?
>>
>> He's trying to override an announced project decision of removing a feature.
> 
> We - obviously - announced it to find somebody who would fix the issues
> raised. If they are fixed, the "decision" is of course void, and we don't
> have to vote about it.

That's not what was announced, at all. Please, read the news entry in question
and inform yourself in the subject before trying to participate in a discussion.

> (We could vote to overturn our decision although there are still
> issues.)
> 
>> If he has no interest in making sure said feature doesn't go back to the
>> state that prompted its removal, then he's simply trying to force the project
>> to keep code someone else will have to deal with.
>>
>> It would make much more sense in that case if the actual person interested and
>> willing to deal with the code to be behind these decision revoking attempts.
>>
>>>
>>>> Or is he just fighting this fight to not remove code for the sake of
>>>> not removing code, and will forget about it and expect someone
>>>> else to deal with it if it starts bitrotting again?
>>>
>>> This is a violation of our code-of-conduct or do I misunderstand you?
>>
>> How so? If he's not going to maintain the code he's campaigning to keep in
>> place, then he obviously expects someone else will, right? How is stating
>> that a violation of the CoC?
> 
> I am not a native speaker but this is not how I read your accusation.
> "is he just fighting the fight to not remove code for the sake of not
> removing code" sounds to me as if you are not assuming good faith.

I'm not assuming anything and I don't know the nature of his intentions, but i
do know everything points said intentions are to keep code he has no plan to deal
with afterwards. That's all i stated.

If you're interested in waving the CoC around, you could reply to the two emails
where Nicolas called me a dictator and an imbecile. It would be nice to know I'm
not being ganged up by two or three people on this whole deal.