[FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00
michaelni at gmx.at
Sat Sep 12 15:24:29 CEST 2015
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 06:50:50AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Yayoi Ukai <yayoi.ukai at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> > >> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> > >> different time if this can't suit you.
> > >>
> > >> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> > >> at the end of the meeting.
> > >>
> > >> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> > >> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> > >> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> > >> developers who will attend it.
> > >>
> > >> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> > >> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> > >
> > >> 2. general policy decision process
> > >
> > > heres a suggestion, maybe useful as input for discussions on
> > > Saturday ...
> > >
> > > FFmpeg used and uses "unanimous consent" in patch reviews
> > > any person could make a suggestion
> > > to improve a patch and it has to be taken care of one way or another
> > > before the patch is ok. This system worked quite well almost all the
> > > time. So i would suggest to use the same / a similar system for
> > > policy decisions
> > >
> > > * Everyone should be able to comment and propose options/choices
> > > * There should be enough time to understand, discuss and amend
> > > proposals
> > > * People should try to understand the other people and avoid strawman
> > > arguments and other non constructive discussion tactics, people/the
> > > commuity should step in if discussions become non constructive and
> > > hostile and try to get people back toward constructive discussion.
> > > * People should be able to declare reservations to a proposal without
> > > blocking the proposal and as a seperate choice veto it in a blocking
> > > fashion. A veto should be public with full name of the developer,
> > > reason why it is bad for the community/project and ideally a
> > > alternative proposal. Also developers vetoing a proposal must be
> > > willing and able to work on finding an better solution.
> > So you can add a deadline for the alternate proposal. For example,
> > if the person who vetoed doesn't come up with an alternate proposal
> > within 30 days,
> > the original proposal must be passed.
> It means everyone can slow a proposal by 30 days.
> Why do we need vetos?
let me awnser a different question first
Why do we need developers/contributors?
to write and maintain code amongth many other reasons
If we depend on these developers/contributors then IMO we should take
their oppinons and objections serious and if one of them is willing
to risk her/his good name to oppose a proposal in public and maybe also
plans to put signifiant time into creating a better compromise proposal
then i belive this is something that should not just be brushed away
easily, and especially not "quick quick" while
everyones minds are maybe heated about some debate
vetos would be one way to achive this
iam not saying that we absolutely need vetos but i think that we
should not pass proposals that would cause any one developer to leave
the project or to make people be seriously unhappy.
People contribute for fun, for social reasons and because they have to
(like because they are paied for it)
a proposal that makes contributions less fun is a bad proposal as it
will result in fewer contributions.
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel