[FFmpeg-devel] Democratization work in progress draft v2

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 7:08 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> Hi James
>
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 03:14:58PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > On 2/1/2025 6:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > Hi James
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:30:21AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > > On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > Hi James
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:44:50PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > > > > On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > > > > > > Niklas Haas (12025-01-30):
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > On the other hand, I believe this whole plan is a bad idea.
> > > > > > Yes, it is a bad idea. We have had the current system in place
> for about
> > > > > > five years now, and besides one or two CC assemblages being
> inefficient, it
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you remember this suggested addition to the FAQ ?
> > > > >
> https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2025-January/338186.html
> > > > >
> > > > > It seems you dont remember it even though this was posted just a
> few days ago
> > > > > I knew this is needed to be put in the FAQ ;(
> > > >
> > > > I saw it, and i think that patch is anything but objective and
> completely
> > > > unacceptable. You're stating your opinion and discrediting a system
> in an
> > > > official document in the project's repository itself of all places.
> Do you
> > > > not see how absurd that is?
> > >
> > > The system is absurd
> >
> > The system is fine.
>
> Then lets publish the FAQ i suggested (or a more formal text)
> and let the reader judge it themselfs
>

Micheal, in the previous mail you said you were humorous, now you're saying
you are serious?
Is it a reverse VDD "joke" image posted on social networks?
It's really hard to read your mind, and this back and forth is not helpful,
and this filibustering is harming the project more than any updated
governance could provide.


> > One CC was inefficient
>
> It is not just one CC. And i would not choose the word "inefficient"
>

Sorry, I'm not following, how many CCs were there? 🤔

> and it bothered you
>
> that really misses the point.
>
> The CCs block moderators while allowing false statments to be published
> about
> developers.
> Its damaging to the people that are targetet and it created confusion and
> disagreement where there is likely no actual significant disagreement
> There are also several other serious issues with the CCs
> (No public reporting / yearly reports / feedback to the voter)
> (biased, treating some people differently)
> (some CC members participated in attacks, both before and
>  during their membership)
> (some CC members did little, but no public reporting)
> (one CC member called multiple developers assholes - then resigned
>  - then was a candidates again - then resigned again)
> ...
> And also iam happy to provide full references in public to any claim above
>

Are those "false statements" or "things people disagree with me"?

Some mailing list admins abused their power but they are still instated.
You know what would fix that? That's right, a working CC!


> > to the point
> > you want to start everything from scratch. It's not reasonable.
>
> No, these are 2 seperate issues. The GA changes likely would not even fix
> the CC issues.
>

Then what are we talking about...?


> Ill reply to the rest seperately to keep my replies short
>

Thank you, it is appreciated
-- 
Vittorio