[FFmpeg-devel] Worsening messages

[James Almer]

On 12/26/2024 9:51 PM, Niklas Haas wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:59:06 -0300 James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 12/26/2024 12:07 PM, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 1:31 PM Michael Niedermayer
>>> <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Community, Community Commitee, Moderators
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your removal of this message as of 1504 GMT 26/12/2024 is completely
>>> unacceptable with one days notice posted on a public holiday in most
>>> countries.
>>> Furthermore, you make regular allegations based on conspiracy theories
>>> against me and others in the project without consequence.
>>> Yet, a largely factual criticism of your behaviour from Vittorio is
>>> censored immediately.
>>
>> This is a he-said-she-said situation. Both sides of the discussion
>> accuse the other of defamation, to the point things escalated to absurd
>> levels. I have already lost the plot and don't even know what riled
>> people so much.
>>
>> I don't want a list of accusations from Vittorio, you, or Michael, and
>> also don't want people to start throwing insults again, but, politely
>> and clearly, what is the core issue here? What is the problem that if
>> solved, would make everyone finally calm down? Is it the thing about
>> transparency and management? What else needs to be done that hasn't yet
>> be done for either of those.
> 
> Having read (but not participated in) a good chunk of the recent discussions,
> here is my attempt at a summarization of the core issue: FFmpeg brands itself
> a democratic project, but it effectively runs on a "benevolent dictator for
> life" model. The main source of frustration is this disconnect between what
> the relevant parties think ought to be, and what is. One side clearly wants to
> move the needle towrds decentralization of power, and the other side clearly
> wants to retain, or even strengthen, a centralized power model.
> 
> There are several tangential discussions to this main point, which as best as
> I can tell, are merely being used as leverage to support their relevant side,
> or to try and gain some slight amounts of power either way (e.g. discussions
> about documentation vs obfuscation of infrastructure).
> 
> I think that ultimately, the only thing that can be done here is for Michael,
> the as of today still *de facto* project leader, to decide whether a
> democratization of FFmpeg is in order. The outcomes I can see are:
> 
> 1. Michael agrees to democratize FFmpeg. The GA holds a "vote of no confidence"
>     against him.
> 
> 1a) Michael loses, and transfers root and DNS rights to whatever party the GA
>      decides should replace him. The rest of the infrastructure flows downstream
>      from there. The community picks up the pieces from there and rebuilds under
>      whatever management process the GA votes on.

Can't this outcome happen without DNS changing hands? I'm not exactly 
sure the GA, with it's current low requirements for membership, should 
have control of the domains.
Can't DNS still remain in Fabrice (or Michael's) hands? Everything, like 
changing hosts for all infrastructure (Gitea/forejo/gitlab migration to 
*anywhere* included), can still be done by GA decisions that way. No 
reasonable request should be denied.

If there's some legal way for Fabrice, as the trademark owner, to regain 
control of the DNS if he deems it necessary, then maybe some legal 
entity can be made to effectively manage it (and not one individual), 
with the TC being in effective control of it.

> 
> 1b) Michael wins, and anybody who is unhappy with this result will simply have
>      to accept the democratically elected outcome or else change their
>      argumentative standpoint from pro-democracy to anti-Michael.
> 
> 2. Michael disagrees to democratize FFmpeg, claims to support a democratic
>     process but ignores (or otherwise blocks) the GA vote, or simply ignores
>     the issue in hopes it will go away; leading to:
> 
> 2a) Proponents of a democratic FFmpeg accept this fact and either cease their
>      position, or else continue bickering on the mailing list for the rest of eternity.
> 
> 2b) The project splits in two (again), and a whole lot of very nasty power
>      games decide who gets to keep what names, trademarks, infrastructure
>      elements, and so on.
> 
> For simplicity, I am assuming (based on what I can see) that Fabrice and other
> de-facto moderators and long time (root) administrators of various infrastructure
> are sufficiently loyal to Michael to follow along with whatever he decides.
> 
> With this in mind, it seems clear to me that no amount of discussion amongst
> the community can change the *matter of fact* that it is Michael who (directly
> or indirectly) holds the keys to power, and therefore Michael who can
> almost unilaterally decide whether we tread down path 1 or 2.
> 
> For what it's worth, we currently appear to be stuck in the scenario 2a for
> the past year (or more).
> 
> I hope I'm not completely misrepresenting the situation here, but do correct
> me if I'm way off.
> 
> Happy holidays,
> -Niklas
> 
>>
>> And as part of the CC (until the new one is finally formed), i also will
>> inform everyone that this and other threads may be moderated if things
>> keep going off the rails, with a proper announcement if so. Same for
>> moderating users if insults keep flying around.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
>> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
>> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>>
>> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
>> ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20241226/28593c70/attachment.sig>