[FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCE] upcoming vote: CC election

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi Marth64

On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 10:27:40PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> > 2. and the most recent case
> Continuing where I left off.
> 
> Let us analyze the s337m situation.
> * Contributor shares significant work, as an RFC, in good faith
> * A back and forth exchange happens with technical feedback and history
> * Then, two senior contributors exchange inflammatory remarks,
> presumably fueled by damaged relations
> * Conversation was reported to CC but outcome could not be reconciled
> with consistent enforcement
> 
> The s337 thread actually is irrelevant to the broader issue, but let
> us pick it apart for a minute.
> This particular thread should have been handled in two angles,
> 
> (1) The technical debate between the senior engineers should have been
> weighed in on by TC
> Yes, TC wasn't directly "summoned", but I imagine we can employ some
> proactivity if we see a tense
> technical discussion. The point of the TC, in my eyes, is to settle
> deadlocked technical debates.
> That is, as a collective response from the TC. Even if that is, "We
> already talked about this once, case closed."
> 
> (2) The inflammatory remarks weren't moderated. This is the broader issue.
> These types of interactions are different from some random person
> coming on say, IRC, and offending people.
> These are senior contributors in a deeply fueled discussion. No ban
> will fix this.
> 
> In fact, saying the word ban, voting for a ban, or applying a ban
> doesn't seem to do anything.
> Based on the example you provided, even after 3 attempts some people don't care.
> I'm not saying we jump to ban people. This is not a PHP video games forum.
> But, waving the word "ban" should be used judiciously and may need to
> be redefined, so that it is taken seriously.
> Likewise, exercising and applying the ban should be taken seriously
> too, especially when considering senior contributors.
> Rubber voting/stamping bans and ignoring similar offenses is not
> effective. I would hope a CC of 5 can work through this.
> 

> So we need to be more clear with a nudge of improvement and push: get
> this toxicity off the ML.

[...]

> Folks should be encouraged to think,
> (1) Is what you're saying adding value and even relevant to the conversation?
> (2) If we're stuck in a bitter technical debate, can the TC help? (yes probably)
> (3) Did I buffer my thoughts or react on impulse?
> (4) Could I have ignored the "igniting" remark and focused on the
> technical part of the discussion?

I fully agree


> 
> We have a Code of Conduct, does it need to be improved?

I tried (with a text written by a LLM so it was fully neutral and not "my" text)
and it had immedeate opposition
maybe you can take a look at that patch and see if that combined
with your suggestions could be a starting point

Btw, i also wanted to say, in case you fail to receive enough
support for a CC seat. Please ignore that and try to help anyway
the ffmpeg community is in need for your help, i think


thx

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give
it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For
even the very wise cannot see all ends. -- Gandalf
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20241219/454e387a/attachment.sig>