Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization

[Niklas Haas <ffmpeg@haasn.xyz>]

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:51:27 +0100 Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> wrote:
> Niklas Haas (12025-01-29):
> > I think the most important crux of the problem is a fundamental disagreement
> > between Michael and the "community" (for lack of a better term) about the role
> > of the CC (and by extension, the GA).
>
> That is a very biassed way of stating it.
>
> For one thing, it is not Michael alone on one side.

As I pointed out in the past, I am implicitly assuming that Timo, Fabrice, and
other current holders of admin rights would go along with whatever Michael
decides, so that makes Michael alone the only person who is blocking the will of
the CC (and by extension, the GA).

If you have reason to believe otherwise, then indeed the situation is more
complicated. And then we may have a third faction consisting of some subset of
(Michael, Timo, Fabrice, and possibly other people we were not made aware of).

> *Some members* of
> what you call community have expressed violent opposition to Michael.
> But *other members* have expressed, support for Michael, yet other
> members have agreed to arguments on both side successively, and the
> majority have not expressed anything.

The CC was elected by a majority of the GA, so for all intents and purposes,
the CC is the closest representation of the majority opinion as we are
likely to ever have.

>
> Furthermore, you will notice that the people who oppose Michael the most
> violently are mostly people who initiated the failed hostile take-over
> 15 years ago (hence the importance of learning from history), who sided
> with the resulting fork or who work closely with them.

Yes, obviously. That is exactly why I think that another fork is a likely
outcome at this point in time.

>
> That tells your these people who oppose Michael the most violently are
> not adverse to hurting the project if it further their needs. They do
> tread FFmpeg as a community, they treat it as a resource to be milked.
> Since acting in the best interest of the community is a defining trait
> of the concept, they should probably not be considered such.

This is a fallacious argument. From the point of view of the anti-Michael
faction, it is Michael's presence that is hurting the project the most. So you
could say the exact same thing about Michael's actions, with the same
circular justification.

>
> >				Michael is under the impression that they
> > (should) serve a mere advisory role, with Michael himself having final say in
> > matters both technical and non-technical.
>
> Michael wanted a genuine democracy but is now realizing it leads to very
> bad outcomes.

This seems like a direct contradiction of reality. Michael has repeatedly
made it clear that the community should *not* be in charge. It also goes
against what we established above, which is that people are leaving the
project precisely because it is *not* democratically run.

>
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".