[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] VDD FFmpeg session and community survey

[Rostislav Pehlivanov]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 at 19:02, Thilo Borgmann <thilo.borgmann at mail.de> wrote:

>
> Please note that this survey is _not_ meant to be a vote about the
> proposal. It is to
> determine if we should actually have a refinement/vote on instantiating
> such a
> community committee - depending on the community's point of view.
>

Spamming (which this would certainly be a textbook definition of) every
subscriber ever (including those who forgot) is unacceptable.


+Further on it is to impose any sanctions related to violations of the code of
> +conduct only if these incidents are brought up to its attention from directly
> +involved parties of such an incident.
>
> Violations should be limited to publicly logged IRC channels or the ML.
Otherwise without proof this will end up as a "but they said" situation.

++ at subheading <http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel>
Committee members
> +
> +The community committee consists of three elected individuals. Committee members are
> +elected for a period of one year and are automatically removed from the committee after
> +that period. Reelection of committee members for the following period is possible.
>
> Three members is far too low and would be prone to bias. 5 or 7 would be
better.


> +
> +If for any reason a current member of the committee wishes to leave the committee, the
> +whole committee is to be reelected. No former committee members having left the committee
> +on their own wish can be a candidate for the successor committee.
>
> That last sentence is random.

+The vote has to implement a direct, free, equal and secret election.
> +The results are to be publicly available.
> +The election should be completed not later than the end of the ongoing period.
> +Any community member can call on itself or any other person to be a candidate for an election.
>
> What if a majority of the committee is biased and bans everyone they
disagree with to take over the project? They certainly could.
What if the committee's decision is something the majority of the
developers disagree with?

This is why I'm against formalizing such prodecures. They're too inflexible
and absolute, and end up being abused or overused (like videolan's weekly
temporary bannings I've heard of).
Furthermore why do you bring this up now at all? We haven't had accidents
of this nature in quite some time. In fact the last time it was the ML
admin's random incorrect decision to block a discussion which ended up
being a problem that everyone disagreed with. And that was 11 months ago.