[FFmpeg-devel] Worsening messages

[Niklas Haas]

On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 22:06:11 -0300 James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 the bar is 'not trusting unknown third parties', then I don't see why not.
I wrote that paragraph under the assumption that the bar is 'not trusting
Michael (and his friends)', in which case DNS remaining in control of a party
that the community would have decided to vote out of power seems a bit odd.

> 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.

That seems to me like more of an implementation detail for scenario 1a, rather
than a question that will get us closer to resolving the core issue.

> 
> > 
> > 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".
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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".