Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] clarifying the TC conflict of interest rule

[Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4487 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:54:56PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 22:51:20)
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:12:11PM +0000, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > On Feb 20, 2024, at 12:41 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > >> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 15:01:11)
> > > >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > >>> [...]
> > > >>>> their preferred wording, and then we can have the GA vote on it.
> > > >>> 
> > > >>> Before this GA vote, we need another extra member discussion/vote.
> > > >>> Because the last GA reset droped several developers from the GA
> > > >> 
> > > >> I see neither why would we "need" such a vote, or why should it be
> > > >> related to this one.
> > > > 
> > > > Because thats what was done in the past.
> > > > The extra member vote was done between a GA reset and the following votes
> > > > like the CC/TC votes
> > > > The exception was the STF vote because there just was not enough time
> > > > 
> > > > We should do this consistently, and
> > > > given that we reset the GA every 6 months, thats the natural rate
> > > > at which to do a extra member vote (unless there is no other vote then
> > > > the extra member vote can be skiped as it would make no difference)
> > > 
> > > It's not clear from https://www.ffmpeg.org/community.html that the extra members should be refreshed every time the GA is updated or that a vote should get held up if that hasn't happened yet. 
> > > 
> > 
> > > > Additional members are added to the General Assembly through a vote after proposal by a member of the General Assembly. They are part of the GA for two years, after which they need a confirmation by the GA.
> > > 
> > > It looks like a request to add extra members to the GA should be done explicitly by someone requesting a vote on it, which can be done at any time. Waiting until something else comes up for a vote seems suboptimal because it then delays that first decision by at least a couple of weeks (given the rules for voting).
> > 
> > We probably dont vote every 6 month on anything
> > 
> > If we wait for a vote, and only then do a extra member vote before, that would
> > result in some delay but fewer votes
> > 
> > Than
> > 
> > if someone starts a extra member vote every 6 month because its unknown if
> > maybe in the next 6 month there could be a vote
> > 
> > so for me, it seemed natural to only do this when theres some decision
> > to be made. (which yes, could add some delay)
> > This is also what we did previously. we only did extra member votes when there
> > was something to vote on like CC/TC
> 
> No, this is not what happened. We did the extra member votes as a part
> of a "grand reset" of the voting system, after it was gridlocked for
> years.
> 
> I agree with Cosmin that it does not follow that we have to vote for
> extra members as a prelude to any other vote.

If you want everyone to accept the vote as valid you should make sure
noone is left out.


> 
> Moreover, you seem to be arguing yet again that anyone dropped from GA
> because of inactivity needs to be added back as an extra member. You've

The beauty of politics, whatever one says, others will present it in a
way that makes it look bad.

IIRC two people where droped, carl and andriy.
andriy is maintaining patchwork and also IIRC helped setup the vote docker
thingy. He isnt in the GA because the GA counts people based on authored commits
but none the less he had enough commits previously so he wasnt in the extra member
vote. He just fell below the threshold.


> raised this point before, and GA disagreed, repeatedly. First in 2020
> when it was agreed that GA is made up of *active contributors*. Then
> again last October, when your proposal to never drop anyone from GA lost
> by a large margin to the winning option.

"your proposal"? ok :)

I think the idea was to provide voters with all options that would represent
everyones position fairly ane then find out what was what people as majority
where happiest with. Not so much my vs your, but whatever


thx

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

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
-- Aristotle

[-- 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".