Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCE] upcoming vote: extra members for GA

[Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3001 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 01:21:13PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-11-09 12:55:25)
> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 10:44:12AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > As nobody expressed a preference, the vote will start next Monday
> > > (2023-11-13). It should run for a week, and will be followed by TC/CC
> > > elections.
> > > 
> > > The only extra GA candidate I see proposed so far is Ronald. If anyone
> > > wants to suggest further people, please do so in this thread ASAP.
> > 
> > IMHO the question of the relation of the list of people who could vote
> > in the last GA vote and the people who where in the general assembly
> > in 2020 should be awnsered before further votes.
> > https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2023-November/316609.html
> 
> As far as I can tell, the voter list in the last vote should be the same
> as the GA from 2020, except for the extra members whose voting rights
> expire after 2 years.
> 
> Do you dispute that? 

There are at least 3 issues here

* The first and maybe the biggest, is that our vote superviser can reply to
  mails within 20min (like in this thread here) but is not replying to a simple
  question within days where the list of voters comes from he used and how it
  relates to the 2020 GA. It gives one the feeling he has some sort of
  difficulty with awnsering that question
  you took a guess here and replied, and i appreciate that. But really JB
  choose this list and also the one in 2020. Only he can explain where these
  lists come from and how they relate.
* The 2nd issue is that there are rules how to change the GA over time
  like that after 2 years there needs to a confirmation AND that the
  other members represent the "active" developers in the last 36 months.
  I can see an argument to leave the 2020 GA untouched and use it as is
  I can also see an argument to update it, and exactly this was done in a
  vote in 2021 by JB. Now we are here trying the 3rd variant of applying
  only half the rules.
  But whats more so, we actually are not. What you are doing here is
  looking at what happened and trying to rationalize it, trying to find
  an explanation for the list. Not stating upfront what this list is
  IMO this is not acceptable for a vote. Uhm we found this list, lets see
  where that might have come from ....
* I know for a fact that at least zane was not in the 2020 GA as i talked
  with him and i know he did cast a vote in 2023 because again he told me.
  So even if you partially apply the rules these lists do not match

will write a seperate reply to the 2nd part of your mail

[...]

thx

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

Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User
questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML.
And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.

[-- 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".