On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi James
> 
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:44:50PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
>>> Niklas Haas (12025-01-30):
> [...]
>>> On the other hand, I believe this whole plan is a bad idea.
>> Yes, it is a bad idea. We have had the current system in place for about
>> five years now, and besides one or two CC assemblages being inefficient, it
> 
> Do you remember this suggested addition to the FAQ ?
> https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2025-January/338186.html
> 
> It seems you dont remember it even though this was posted just a few days ago
> I knew this is needed to be put in the FAQ ;(

I saw it, and i think that patch is anything but objective and 
completely unacceptable. You're stating your opinion and discrediting a 
system in an official document in the project's repository itself of all 
places. Do you not see how absurd that is?

> 
> 
>> has worked. Changing it now because one person was unhappy with a CC (That
> 
> This is a false statement. Iam not suggesting a change to the GA because of one CC
> iam suggesting a change because it is vulnerable to an attack.
> 
> (The CC isnt even fixed by this, i think the concept of a CC elected out of a
> community thats full of mutual hate is a bad idea)
> 
> But back to the topic, what do you suggest to fix the vulerability in the GA ?
> Or you dont care?

Why do you say there's a vulnerability in the GA? Has it been exploited 
for this to be an issue? Did someone to your knowledge buy a developer 
to write 20 commits and get them into the GA? Otherwise, you're making a 
big deal out of an hypothetical, and that's really damaging to the project.

I don't know if you realize, but you're being incredibly disrespectful 
with almost everyone who has contributed anything in the last decade, 
treating them as moles trying to bring down the project instead of 
contributing to its success.