Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
@ 2023-10-10 11:56 Michael Niedermayer
  2023-10-10 12:32 ` Anton Khirnov
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2023-10-10 11:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2239 bytes --]

Hi all

a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
"1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"

There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
There are 2 choices which are similar
(update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
(use the 2020 version, never update)

First its neccessary to give the community a chance to discuss the GA composition
choices, collect suggestions and then do a vote

Now iam quite unprepared to really suggest something as i also didnt think about this
much or expect this vote now but at least something like
* keep everyone who had vote rights but add active developers each jan/july

Is a more honest choice for the "opposition" than "never update"

But hey why this matters, you might ask ?
just recently we discussed having the domain be controlled by the GA
now someone started a vote with no prior discussion on the ML (there was discussion in VDD only)
basically only one real option to choose and 6 days duration.
You might be happy with this specific change here in this case but
This is one reason why I was so scared in relation to the GA controlling
the domain. The GA composition is a dynamic thing with the way its setup
currently and with this, can easily become very different from what anyone
expects.
This year you spend all your time in FFmpeg and are part of the GA, next
someone else makes all decissions about FFmpeg and you have no vote in it.

ABout this vote, I think this vote should be paused and proper disscussion
should start, IF there is a need to do this vote now.
Debian uses 2 weeks minimum discussion and 2 weeks voting IIRC so thats a
start point for important votes like this one.
For unimporatnt things (like SDR) something like a 7 day vote if noone minds
should be fine but for things critical to FFmpegs decission making, i do not
think these should be rushed.

Thanks


-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

What does censorship reveal? It reveals fear. -- Julian Assange

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 11:56 [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE Michael Niedermayer
@ 2023-10-10 12:32 ` Anton Khirnov
  2023-10-10 12:58   ` Michael Niedermayer
  2023-10-10 13:21   ` Michael Niedermayer
  2023-10-10 12:42 ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
  2023-10-10 14:05 ` Derek Buitenhuis
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Anton Khirnov @ 2023-10-10 12:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches

Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 13:56:45)
> Hi all
> 
> a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> 
> There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
> There are 2 choices which are similar
> (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> (use the 2020 version, never update)

"opposition"?
Who is this opposition, who are they opposed to, and why the scare quotes?

> First its neccessary to give the community a chance to discuss the GA composition
> choices, collect suggestions and then do a vote

The community did have the chance to discuss this. The point was raised
at VDD over 2 weeks ago, at the developer meeting you participated in.
You even commented on this specific point.

Then a summary of the meeting (including the intent to have a vote on
this) was sent to this mailing list. If there was no discussion then
perhaps it was because nobody was interested in discussing it.

> Now iam quite unprepared to really suggest something as i also didnt think about this
> much or expect this vote now but at least something like
> * keep everyone who had vote rights but add active developers each jan/july
> 
> Is a more honest choice for the "opposition" than "never update"

Why did you not suggest this choice before? You had more than two weeks
to do so.

> But hey why this matters, you might ask ?
> just recently we discussed having the domain be controlled by the GA
> now someone started a vote with no prior discussion on the ML (there was discussion in VDD only)
> basically only one real option to choose and 6 days duration.
> You might be happy with this specific change here in this case but
> This is one reason why I was so scared in relation to the GA controlling
> the domain. The GA composition is a dynamic thing with the way its setup
> currently and with this, can easily become very different from what anyone
> expects.
> This year you spend all your time in FFmpeg and are part of the GA, next
> someone else makes all decissions about FFmpeg and you have no vote in it.
> 
> ABout this vote, I think this vote should be paused and proper disscussion
> should start, IF there is a need to do this vote now.
> Debian uses 2 weeks minimum discussion and 2 weeks voting IIRC so thats a
> start point for important votes like this one.
> For unimporatnt things (like SDR) something like a 7 day vote if noone minds
> should be fine but for things critical to FFmpegs decission making, i do not
> think these should be rushed.

I see no reason to pause anything. There were over two weeks to discuss
this point.

-- 
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 11:56 [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE Michael Niedermayer
  2023-10-10 12:32 ` Anton Khirnov
@ 2023-10-10 12:42 ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
  2023-10-10 12:44   ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
  2023-10-10 13:04   ` Michael Niedermayer
  2023-10-10 14:05 ` Derek Buitenhuis
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Jean-Baptiste Kempf @ 2023-10-10 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ffmpeg-devel

Hello,

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023, at 13:56, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
>
> There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.

https://github.com/videolabs/libspatialaudio

> There are 2 choices which are similar
> (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> (use the 2020 version, never update)

Those 3 were mentioned at VDD in the FFmpeg meeting you were in.
It was also already discussed at FOSDEM this year and the previous, and people complained that I did not do that vote before.

> First its neccessary to give the community a chance to discuss the GA 
> composition
> choices, collect suggestions and then do a vote

I think this was done.

> Now iam quite unprepared to really suggest something as i also didnt 
> think about this
> much or expect this vote now but at least something like
> * keep everyone who had vote rights but add active developers each 
> jan/july
>
> Is a more honest choice for the "opposition" than "never update"

That's an extra choice, in my opinion, and we could also have it, but it's a bit annoying that you say it now.
But it's doable.

Best,

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf -  President
+33 672 704 734
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 12:42 ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
@ 2023-10-10 12:44   ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
  2023-10-10 13:04   ` Michael Niedermayer
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Jean-Baptiste Kempf @ 2023-10-10 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ffmpeg-devel

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023, at 14:42, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>> There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
>
http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2023-September/314772.html

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf -  President
+33 672 704 734
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 12:32 ` Anton Khirnov
@ 2023-10-10 12:58   ` Michael Niedermayer
  2023-10-10 13:33     ` Anton Khirnov
  2023-10-10 13:21   ` Michael Niedermayer
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2023-10-10 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2477 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 13:56:45)
> > Hi all
> > 
> > a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> > a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> > "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> > 
> > There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
> > There are 2 choices which are similar
> > (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> > And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> > (use the 2020 version, never update)
> 
> "opposition"?
> Who is this opposition, who are they opposed to, and why the scare quotes?
> 
> > First its neccessary to give the community a chance to discuss the GA composition
> > choices, collect suggestions and then do a vote
> 
> The community did have the chance to discuss this. The point was raised
> at VDD over 2 weeks ago, at the developer meeting you participated in.
> You even commented on this specific point.

My health was somewhat bad on that day, theres no way i could have
within a minute from learning about this during the meeting thought
about what choices would make sense and suggest them.


> 
> Then a summary of the meeting (including the intent to have a vote on
> this) was sent to this mailing list. If there was no discussion then
> perhaps it was because nobody was interested in discussing it.
> 
> > Now iam quite unprepared to really suggest something as i also didnt think about this
> > much or expect this vote now but at least something like
> > * keep everyone who had vote rights but add active developers each jan/july
> > 
> > Is a more honest choice for the "opposition" than "never update"
> 
> Why did you not suggest this choice before? You had more than two weeks
> to do so.

Because it was said voting to happen after 6.1, So i thought there is
plenty of time as 6.1 is not even branched yet

I really did not expect to be surprised by a vote on the GA yesterday

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

If you drop bombs on a foreign country and kill a hundred thousand
innocent people, expect your government to call the consequence
"unprovoked inhuman terrorist attacks" and use it to justify dropping
more bombs and killing more people. The technology changed, the idea is old.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 12:42 ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
  2023-10-10 12:44   ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
@ 2023-10-10 13:04   ` Michael Niedermayer
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2023-10-10 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2133 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:42:38PM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2023, at 13:56, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> > a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> > "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> >
> > There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
> 
> https://github.com/videolabs/libspatialaudio
> 
> > There are 2 choices which are similar
> > (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> > And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> > (use the 2020 version, never update)
> 
> Those 3 were mentioned at VDD in the FFmpeg meeting you were in.
> It was also already discussed at FOSDEM this year and the previous, and people complained that I did not do that vote before.
> 
> > First its neccessary to give the community a chance to discuss the GA 
> > composition
> > choices, collect suggestions and then do a vote
> 
> I think this was done.
> 

> > Now iam quite unprepared to really suggest something as i also didnt 
> > think about this
> > much or expect this vote now but at least something like
> > * keep everyone who had vote rights but add active developers each 
> > jan/july
> >
> > Is a more honest choice for the "opposition" than "never update"
> 
> That's an extra choice, in my opinion, and we could also have it, but it's a bit annoying that you say it now.
> But it's doable.

iam sorry, i would have brought this up sooner had i realized we are voting
now.
I was of the impression the vote would be after 6.1 OR someone would first
suggest we should do a GA vote now before actually starting the vote.

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The real ebay dictionary, page 1
"Used only once"    - "Some unspecified defect prevented a second use"
"In good condition" - "Can be repaird by experienced expert"
"As is" - "You wouldnt want it even if you were payed for it, if you knew ..."

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 12:32 ` Anton Khirnov
  2023-10-10 12:58   ` Michael Niedermayer
@ 2023-10-10 13:21   ` Michael Niedermayer
  2023-10-10 13:38     ` Anton Khirnov
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2023-10-10 13:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1542 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 13:56:45)
> > Hi all
> > 
> > a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> > a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> > "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> > 
> > There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
> > There are 2 choices which are similar
> > (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> > And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> > (use the 2020 version, never update)
> 
> "opposition"?
> Who is this opposition, who are they opposed to, and why the scare quotes?

Ive added the "" because i think there is no real opposition

But there are people who loose their vote rights with this vote.
So if they vote for the obvious options they kind of self castrate

for them this looks like

1. cut off my tail
2. cut off my balls
3. stop new developers after 2020 from having vote rights

This must just looks like a choice between tea, window and airplane for
some people, if you know what i mean

(and yes it seems my humour is modulated by lack of reasonable sleep)

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Let us carefully observe those good qualities wherein our enemies excel us
and endeavor to excel them, by avoiding what is faulty, and imitating what
is excellent in them. -- Plutarch

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 12:58   ` Michael Niedermayer
@ 2023-10-10 13:33     ` Anton Khirnov
  2023-10-10 17:02       ` Michael Niedermayer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Anton Khirnov @ 2023-10-10 13:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches

Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 14:58:53)
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 13:56:45)
> > > Hi all
> > > 
> > > a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> > > a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> > > "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> > > 
> > > There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
> > > There are 2 choices which are similar
> > > (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> > > And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> > > (use the 2020 version, never update)
> > 
> > "opposition"?
> > Who is this opposition, who are they opposed to, and why the scare quotes?
> > 
> > > First its neccessary to give the community a chance to discuss the GA composition
> > > choices, collect suggestions and then do a vote
> > 
> > The community did have the chance to discuss this. The point was raised
> > at VDD over 2 weeks ago, at the developer meeting you participated in.
> > You even commented on this specific point.
> 
> My health was somewhat bad on that day, theres no way i could have
> within a minute from learning about this during the meeting thought
> about what choices would make sense and suggest them.

I am not saying you have to come up with options on the spot, I'm saying
you were aware of the intent to have a vote on this.

> > 
> > Then a summary of the meeting (including the intent to have a vote on
> > this) was sent to this mailing list. If there was no discussion then
> > perhaps it was because nobody was interested in discussing it.
> > 
> > > Now iam quite unprepared to really suggest something as i also didnt think about this
> > > much or expect this vote now but at least something like
> > > * keep everyone who had vote rights but add active developers each jan/july
> > > 
> > > Is a more honest choice for the "opposition" than "never update"
> > 
> > Why did you not suggest this choice before? You had more than two weeks
> > to do so.
> 
> Because it was said voting to happen after 6.1, So i thought there is
> plenty of time as 6.1 is not even branched yet

I am not aware of anyone having said that. The main impetus for this
vote is to unblock other votes we need to have. The foremost of them is
electing new TC and CC, which is very long overdue at this point.
That should be done before voting on SDR, which presumably you want to
happen before 6.1

-- 
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 13:21   ` Michael Niedermayer
@ 2023-10-10 13:38     ` Anton Khirnov
  2023-10-10 17:33       ` Michael Niedermayer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Anton Khirnov @ 2023-10-10 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches

Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 15:21:42)
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 13:56:45)
> > > Hi all
> > > 
> > > a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> > > a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> > > "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> > > 
> > > There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
> > > There are 2 choices which are similar
> > > (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> > > And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> > > (use the 2020 version, never update)
> > 
> > "opposition"?
> > Who is this opposition, who are they opposed to, and why the scare quotes?
> 
> Ive added the "" because i think there is no real opposition
> 
> But there are people who loose their vote rights with this vote.
> So if they vote for the obvious options they kind of self castrate
> 
> for them this looks like
> 
> 1. cut off my tail
> 2. cut off my balls
> 3. stop new developers after 2020 from having vote rights
> 
> This must just looks like a choice between tea, window and airplane for
> some people, if you know what i mean
> 
> (and yes it seems my humour is modulated by lack of reasonable sleep)

You're supposing everyone wants voting rights. That is not so in my
experience - I talked to multiple semi/formerly-active developers who
believe they should not have voting rights on account of not being
active enough.

And for people who do want voting right - gathering and maintaining the
required commit count requires only a very modest effort. So if someone
loses voting rights then it can only be because they don't care enough
about having them.

-- 
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 11:56 [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE Michael Niedermayer
  2023-10-10 12:32 ` Anton Khirnov
  2023-10-10 12:42 ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
@ 2023-10-10 14:05 ` Derek Buitenhuis
  2023-10-10 14:09   ` James Almer
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Derek Buitenhuis @ 2023-10-10 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ffmpeg-devel

On 10/10/2023 12:56 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"

Without commenting on anything else, I thought it was important to
note that I do not think this/these emails even made it to everyone
who is allowed to vote, which is a problem.

- Derek
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 14:05 ` Derek Buitenhuis
@ 2023-10-10 14:09   ` James Almer
  2023-10-10 14:23     ` Derek Buitenhuis
  2023-10-10 14:42     ` Nicolas George
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: James Almer @ 2023-10-10 14:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ffmpeg-devel

On 10/10/2023 11:05 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> On 10/10/2023 12:56 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
>> a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
>> "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> 
> Without commenting on anything else, I thought it was important to
> note that I do not think this/these emails even made it to everyone
> who is allowed to vote, which is a problem.
> 
> - Derek

The email was sent from ffcivs@gmx.de, a domain that some email 
providers apparently dislike? Google at least is fine with it.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 14:09   ` James Almer
@ 2023-10-10 14:23     ` Derek Buitenhuis
  2023-10-10 14:42     ` Nicolas George
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Derek Buitenhuis @ 2023-10-10 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ffmpeg-devel

On 10/10/2023 3:09 PM, James Almer wrote:
> The email was sent from ffcivs@gmx.de, a domain that some email 
> providers apparently dislike? Google at least is fine with it.

I did not get it, not even in my spam. Neither did Vittorio.

- Derek
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 14:09   ` James Almer
  2023-10-10 14:23     ` Derek Buitenhuis
@ 2023-10-10 14:42     ` Nicolas George
  2023-10-10 14:54       ` James Almer
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Nicolas George @ 2023-10-10 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches

James Almer (12023-10-10):
> The email was sent from ffcivs@gmx.de, a domain that some email providers
> apparently dislike? Google at least is fine with it.

I do not know if I am on the voting list, but I can attest that no mail
with that origin address reached the MX for my address.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 14:42     ` Nicolas George
@ 2023-10-10 14:54       ` James Almer
  2023-10-10 15:16         ` Zhao Zhili
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: James Almer @ 2023-10-10 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: ffmpeg-devel

On 10/10/2023 11:42 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> James Almer (12023-10-10):
>> The email was sent from ffcivs@gmx.de, a domain that some email providers
>> apparently dislike? Google at least is fine with it.
> 
> I do not know if I am on the voting list, but I can attest that no mail
> with that origin address reached the MX for my address.
> 
> Regards,

If you were in the last General Assembly list, it should have been sent 
to you.
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 14:54       ` James Almer
@ 2023-10-10 15:16         ` Zhao Zhili
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Zhao Zhili @ 2023-10-10 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 'FFmpeg development discussions and patches'

> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of James Almer
> Sent: 2023年10月10日 22:55
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
> 
> On 10/10/2023 11:42 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > James Almer (12023-10-10):
> >> The email was sent from ffcivs@gmx.de, a domain that some email providers
> >> apparently dislike? Google at least is fine with it.
> >
> > I do not know if I am on the voting list, but I can attest that no mail
> > with that origin address reached the MX for my address.
> >
> > Regards,
> 
> If you were in the last General Assembly list, it should have been sent
> to you.

I searched my three email accounts listed in mailmap and failed to find the
email.

> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 13:33     ` Anton Khirnov
@ 2023-10-10 17:02       ` Michael Niedermayer
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2023-10-10 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3641 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 03:33:21PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 14:58:53)
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 13:56:45)
> > > > Hi all
> > > > 
> > > > a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> > > > a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> > > > "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> > > > 
> > > > There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
> > > > There are 2 choices which are similar
> > > > (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> > > > And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> > > > (use the 2020 version, never update)
> > > 
> > > "opposition"?
> > > Who is this opposition, who are they opposed to, and why the scare quotes?
> > > 
> > > > First its neccessary to give the community a chance to discuss the GA composition
> > > > choices, collect suggestions and then do a vote
> > > 
> > > The community did have the chance to discuss this. The point was raised
> > > at VDD over 2 weeks ago, at the developer meeting you participated in.
> > > You even commented on this specific point.
> > 
> > My health was somewhat bad on that day, theres no way i could have
> > within a minute from learning about this during the meeting thought
> > about what choices would make sense and suggest them.
> 
> I am not saying you have to come up with options on the spot, I'm saying
> you were aware of the intent to have a vote on this.
> 
> > > 
> > > Then a summary of the meeting (including the intent to have a vote on
> > > this) was sent to this mailing list. If there was no discussion then
> > > perhaps it was because nobody was interested in discussing it.
> > > 
> > > > Now iam quite unprepared to really suggest something as i also didnt think about this
> > > > much or expect this vote now but at least something like
> > > > * keep everyone who had vote rights but add active developers each jan/july
> > > > 
> > > > Is a more honest choice for the "opposition" than "never update"
> > > 
> > > Why did you not suggest this choice before? You had more than two weeks
> > > to do so.
> > 
> > Because it was said voting to happen after 6.1, So i thought there is
> > plenty of time as 6.1 is not even branched yet
> 
> I am not aware of anyone having said that. The main impetus for this

I had the impression the intent was to do the release first because the
discussions about the vote added (and the votes itself would more so)
cause delays to the release.
At least I ended up spending significant time in vote releated threads that
i did not spend on release & security related work.

I would have to reread tons on logs to find which exact statments gave me
that impression.


> vote is to unblock other votes we need to have. The foremost of them is
> electing new TC and CC, which is very long overdue at this point.
> That should be done before voting on SDR, which presumably you want to
> happen before 6.1

the SDR vote does not need to happen before 6.1
(its nice if it does but it does not have to)

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Awnsering whenever a program halts or runs forever is
On a turing machine, in general impossible (turings halting problem).
On any real computer, always possible as a real computer has a finite number
of states N, and will either halt in less than N cycles or never halt.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 13:38     ` Anton Khirnov
@ 2023-10-10 17:33       ` Michael Niedermayer
  2023-10-24 21:28         ` Anton Khirnov
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niedermayer @ 2023-10-10 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3278 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 03:38:22PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 15:21:42)
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 13:56:45)
> > > > Hi all
> > > > 
> > > > a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> > > > a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> > > > "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> > > > 
> > > > There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
> > > > There are 2 choices which are similar
> > > > (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> > > > And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> > > > (use the 2020 version, never update)
> > > 
> > > "opposition"?
> > > Who is this opposition, who are they opposed to, and why the scare quotes?
> > 
> > Ive added the "" because i think there is no real opposition
> > 
> > But there are people who loose their vote rights with this vote.
> > So if they vote for the obvious options they kind of self castrate
> > 
> > for them this looks like
> > 
> > 1. cut off my tail
> > 2. cut off my balls
> > 3. stop new developers after 2020 from having vote rights
> > 
> > This must just looks like a choice between tea, window and airplane for
> > some people, if you know what i mean
> > 
> > (and yes it seems my humour is modulated by lack of reasonable sleep)
> 
> You're supposing everyone wants voting rights. That is not so in my
> experience - I talked to multiple semi/formerly-active developers who
> believe they should not have voting rights on account of not being
> active enough.

Id like to talk to them ;)
And thats what id like to say:

I think its perfectly reasonable to choose not to vote if one is inactive.
But to choose to cut ones fingers off so one cannot vote even when a critical
need arrises is something different.


> 
> And for people who do want voting right - gathering and maintaining the
> required commit count requires only a very modest effort. So if someone
> loses voting rights then it can only be because they don't care enough
> about having them.

Alot of things require only modest effort and we care about them still
we fail to do them
I think one reason is all these modest efforts add up to be not modest anymore
another is keeping track of everything one needs to do

If the world is empty and there is just FFmpeg and a developer in it then yes
i agree with your statement fully

bad example but
imagine one would have to pick up trash from teh street 20 times to get a right
to vote in the next gov. election. How many people would do that? How many people
would regret when they then cannot vote ?
I dont think people look ahead enough to say "i care about FFmpeg" i better make
sure i keep my vote rights and do 20 commits.
I would expect it to be rather "WTF we have a vote about putting a VPN add and installer on ffmpeg.org"
let me ohhh uhh i have no vote rights!?

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool.
-- Epicurus

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

* Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE
  2023-10-10 17:33       ` Michael Niedermayer
@ 2023-10-24 21:28         ` Anton Khirnov
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread
From: Anton Khirnov @ 2023-10-24 21:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches

Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 19:33:44)
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 03:38:22PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > 
> > And for people who do want voting right - gathering and maintaining the
> > required commit count requires only a very modest effort. So if someone
> > loses voting rights then it can only be because they don't care enough
> > about having them.
> 
> Alot of things require only modest effort and we care about them still
> we fail to do them
> I think one reason is all these modest efforts add up to be not modest anymore
> another is keeping track of everything one needs to do
> 
> If the world is empty and there is just FFmpeg and a developer in it then yes
> i agree with your statement fully
> 
> bad example but
> imagine one would have to pick up trash from teh street 20 times to get a right
> to vote in the next gov. election. How many people would do that? How many people
> would regret when they then cannot vote ?
> I dont think people look ahead enough to say "i care about FFmpeg" i better make
> sure i keep my vote rights and do 20 commits.
> I would expect it to be rather "WTF we have a vote about putting a VPN add and installer on ffmpeg.org"
> let me ohhh uhh i have no vote rights!?

You are entitled to your opinion of course, but the basic rules adopted
by the majority of the community in 2020 say:
  The General Assembly is made up of active contributors.
                                     ^^^^^^
..and so apparently disagree with you.

-- 
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-10-24 21:28 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-10-10 11:56 [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE Michael Niedermayer
2023-10-10 12:32 ` Anton Khirnov
2023-10-10 12:58   ` Michael Niedermayer
2023-10-10 13:33     ` Anton Khirnov
2023-10-10 17:02       ` Michael Niedermayer
2023-10-10 13:21   ` Michael Niedermayer
2023-10-10 13:38     ` Anton Khirnov
2023-10-10 17:33       ` Michael Niedermayer
2023-10-24 21:28         ` Anton Khirnov
2023-10-10 12:42 ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
2023-10-10 12:44   ` Jean-Baptiste Kempf
2023-10-10 13:04   ` Michael Niedermayer
2023-10-10 14:05 ` Derek Buitenhuis
2023-10-10 14:09   ` James Almer
2023-10-10 14:23     ` Derek Buitenhuis
2023-10-10 14:42     ` Nicolas George
2023-10-10 14:54       ` James Almer
2023-10-10 15:16         ` Zhao Zhili

Git Inbox Mirror of the ffmpeg-devel mailing list - see https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev/0 ffmpegdev/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 ffmpegdev ffmpegdev/ https://master.gitmailbox.com/ffmpegdev \
		ffmpegdev@gitmailbox.com
	public-inbox-index ffmpegdev

Example config snippet for mirrors.


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git