Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization

[Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4555 bytes --]

Hi James

On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 03:48:15PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/17/2025 2:39 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 03:40:42PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > On 1/14/2025 2:06 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
> 
> > and from that a community committee is elected yearly of 5 judges which behind
> > closed doors and no record and no allowed defense, no trial, decides whatever
> > it likes about whoever it liks. Also just this year the CC decided that its
> > power will be expanded beyond interpersonal conflicts to control all finance
> > of everyone.
> 
> This is not true, so why even say it?

It is true that there where plans to expand the power of the CC. I could quote a
private mail from a member of the CC if i find it again.


> If you're talking about SPI/STF, the
> CC didn't intervene on any request or project approval. You are working in
> one said project, as is Niklas.

The mere possibility that the CC could "intervene" about anything has a very
chilling effect. Few people will touch finances in such an environment.
Bascially this will make use of money in the future more difficult.
In the past we just all tried to do the right thing for the project
but if theres a possibility the CC could declare anything "wrong" many
people will think twice if its worth it.

I think we need to clearly declare that the CC follows the principle of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-retroactivity

and that its powers are limited to what is explicitly agreed
by the community and i would think this would require some consensus
not a 50%+1 if its expended


> 
> > 
> > really ? thats a democracy ?
> 
> Yes, it's a democracy. People participate in it, vote, and a majority wins.
> The problem is in the structure we came up with it, as you put it below.
> 
> > you want that ? (i mean if you are not "inside" as in if whatever party you
> > like less, is in charge of this)
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > You're being incredibly dismissive of the people who are keeping the project
> > > alive by giving them labels like the above.
> > 
> > no, not the people. The people are FFmpeg, teh project would be nothing
> > without the people.
> > 
> > Iam dismissive about the political structure we created.
> 
> You're displeased with the toothless CC that was replaced last month, and
> not with the overall structure itself. And I'm in part at fault for it not
> acting when it should have. I have said it before.
> The new CC hasn't yet put to test, so at the very least lets do that.
> 

> Now, if all fails, you and anyone else can suggest a new structure. It could
> to be disband the CC and replace it with something else. It could be to
> clearly define that ML temporary bans and thread moderation can be handed by
> ML admins (With a modicum of common sense to choose when to act) while the
> CC deliberates on any relevant report. It could be to increase the amount of
> people in the committee. It could be anything we can agree on, and the way
> we agree on it is with a majority vote.

I do think the CC is a problematic entity in a community where there are
complex friendships and hatred. And then the members of this CC come from this
small group and mainly judge members of this same group


> 
> Similarly, you can suggest to increase, or decrease, the bar to enter the
> GA. I'd expect you asking for the latter, because i recall that you some
> time ago mentioned how said bar was in fact too low. But then even less
> people would make it in, which doesn't seem like something you'd like seeing
> how you insist the 2000+ ML subscriptors, even if they only lurk and never
> even talk, should be considered.

I do see the threshold based system as fragile, I dont think changing
the threshold fixes this. On one side its slighty more people and even
easier to get vote power on the other its harder to get vote power per
person but fewer people. This would result in a even smaller group.
Neither really sounds great to me


> 
> Also, it can also be made that certain votes require a special majority and
> not a simple 50% + 1. Anything, and everything, can be changed.


> The only
> thing that should remain a constant is to keep the project a community
> managed one.

keep community managed, yes

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct answer.

[-- 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".