[FFmpeg-devel] Democratization

[Nicolas George]

James Almer (12025-02-01):
> It does by definition.

A definition is not an argument by itself. A definition is a way for
people to speak the same language when they state their arguments.
Multiple people have said that we do not agree with that definition.

> >                                (both me and nicolas for example liked the
> >     GA idea originally IIRC) also paul opposed it publically immedeatly

YRC

> And why did you stop liking the idea?

When I realized that it gives the most power to the very people who have
tried to take over the project.

> As it's been said before, proposing to change a system because you were not
> satisfied with the current one sets a bad precedent, and signals you're ok
> with a democratic system as long as it's to your liking, not as long as it's
> agreed by the people participating in it.

It is exactly as it is, I only wish Michael would dare stating it as it
is: “I am still the leader of this project, appointed to carry the
legacy, and democracy is happening under my supervision. The way we have
implemented it is not working, so I am changing it. Preferably with
general approval.”

> How many times are you going to repeat this? Thousands of registered emails
> in a mailing list (of which a bunch are removed for excessive bouncing
> almost daily) is not thousands of people active in a community.

Users are part of the FFmpeg community too. That make millions of
people, possibly billions.

Do we give users a say in the future of the project?

Yes, we do! If a user suggests an interesting feature, one of us may
decide to implement it. It has happened many times.

Do we give users a vote in the future of the project? Of course not.
Many users ask for features because they misunderstand the correct way
of achieving their goal. We will not implement those features just
because they are many.

The point: a user has a say in the future of the project in as much the
suggestions of that users have merit.

Merit: remember that word.

> Those 49 are people that have kept the project alive and progressing for at
> least the last five years.

So these 49 people have done more for the project than the people who
have contributed just one or two patches in all? You are saying that the
condition to have a vote that you approve is based on the level of merit
of contributors towards the project.

I believe that you just admitted that FFmpeg is and should be not a
democracy but a meritocracy.

Excellent. Now we can discuss how to do it properly, because everybody
equal until an arbitrary cutoff is one of the stupidest meritocracy
conceivable.

-- 
  Nicolas George