[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Marth64]

Dear FFmpeg Community,

We’d like to share an update on the work of the Community Committee
(CC). Starting this week, we will hold a weekly internal panel to
discuss community matters and ensure more structured issue resolution.

One of our key goals is to address some of the lingering discussions
from 2024 while laying a strong foundation for the future. We
recognize that progress will be gradual, but we are committed to
working as a team and presenting unified messaging to improve
communication and transparency. We expect to deliver communications
soon on some issues.

We look forward to continuing to serve the FFmpeg community and
fostering a collaborative and productive environment. Thank you for
your ongoing support and engagement.

On behalf of the CC,

Best regards,
Marth64
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2060 bytes --]

Hi Marth64

On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 05:04:00PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> Dear FFmpeg Community,
> 
> We’d like to share an update on the work of the Community Committee
> (CC). Starting this week, we will hold a weekly internal panel to
> discuss community matters and ensure more structured issue resolution.
> 
> One of our key goals is to address some of the lingering discussions
> from 2024 while laying a strong foundation for the future. We
> recognize that progress will be gradual, but we are committed to
> working as a team and presenting unified messaging to improve
> communication and transparency. We expect to deliver communications
> soon on some issues.
> 
> We look forward to continuing to serve the FFmpeg community and
> fostering a collaborative and productive environment. Thank you for
> your ongoing support and engagement.
> 
> On behalf of the CC,

There are 3+ parts here

1. I agree we need discussions, transparency and maybe IRC or some other
   audio/video form of commuication can be tried. Such discussion should be
   public and open. And they must include admins and main authors.

2. The CC is overstepping its authority.

3. There is a huge growing backlog of increasing development issues
   id like to work on without having to fight and argue over governance
   Id like to backport security fixes, make new releases.

About "internal panel", There should not be a "internal panel" dominated
by videolan developers discussing FFmpeg. If there is such a panel, it
should be the main authors, the people who did spend a significant time
of their life working on FFmpeg. (and you should be included as you seem
good at this, and i should be in it because iam one of the main authors
amongth other things)

Thank you

PS: this is just my initial thought/reply and i may have a better idea
after sleeping over this

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

Those who are best at talking, realize last or never when they are wrong.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 2:51 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> Hi Marth64
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 05:04:00PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> > Dear FFmpeg Community,
> >
> > We’d like to share an update on the work of the Community Committee
> > (CC). Starting this week, we will hold a weekly internal panel to
> > discuss community matters and ensure more structured issue resolution.
> >
> > One of our key goals is to address some of the lingering discussions
> > from 2024 while laying a strong foundation for the future. We
> > recognize that progress will be gradual, but we are committed to
> > working as a team and presenting unified messaging to improve
> > communication and transparency. We expect to deliver communications
> > soon on some issues.
> >
> > We look forward to continuing to serve the FFmpeg community and
> > fostering a collaborative and productive environment. Thank you for
> > your ongoing support and engagement.
>

Thank you for your work trying to steward the community Marth.


> >
> > On behalf of the CC,
>
> There are 3+ parts here
>
> 1. I agree we need discussions, transparency and maybe IRC or some other
>    audio/video form of commuication can be tried. Such discussion should be
>    public and open. And they must include admins and main authors.
>

No, they shouldn't, otherwise the CC will be influenced by the project
leader *again* and prevented from doing anything actionable *again*.


> 2. The CC is overstepping its authority.
>

No, respectfully, you are.


> 3. There is a huge growing backlog of increasing development issues
>    id like to work on without having to fight and argue over governance
>    Id like to backport security fixes, make new releases.
>

Then stop talking about governance, let the current system in place do its
job :)


> About "internal panel", There should not be a "internal panel" dominated
> by videolan developers discussing FFmpeg.


It never was or has been, but I agree it should be independent, including
from current FFmpeg leadership.


> If there is such a panel, it
> should be the main authors, the people who did spend a significant time
> of their life working on FFmpeg. (and you should be included as you seem
> good at this, and i should be in it because iam one of the main authors
> amongth other things)
>

While people who spent a significant time of their life working on FFmpeg
may be great developers, their skillset might not be matching the one
needed to handle a community.

Cmon we've been over these points, let's not rehash the same drama over and
over, and let the volunteers of the CC do their job.
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel]

> While people who spent a significant time of their life working on FFmpeg
> may be great developers, their skillset might not be matching the one
> needed to handle a community.
>
> Cmon we've been over these points, let's not rehash the same drama over and
> over, and let the volunteers of the CC do their job.

Hi Vittorio,

A quick reminder that questioning the unelected people who run our
infrastructure in a wholly secretive fashion is unacceptable but
questioning the elected CC is perfectly fine. I thought you knew the
rules here by now.

Regards,
Kieran Kunhya
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, at 02:51, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> 1. I agree we need discussions, transparency and maybe IRC or some other
>    audio/video form of commuication can be tried. Such discussion should be
>    public and open. And they must include admins and main authors.

Great, the mailing list is here for that. It is public and open.

> 2. The CC is overstepping its authority.

Literally, the email just says that the CC is now meeting regularly; what authority can it be overstepping?
People speaking together and meeting is now forbidden?

> 3. About "internal panel", There should not be a "internal panel" dominated

CC was elected by GA. GA is composed of most of the active developers. This is not a random internal panel.

And people active in a project are allowed to talk to each other. How can you deny people the right to talk to each other?


-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf 
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2095 bytes --]

Hi jb

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:11:39AM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, at 02:51, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
> > 2. The CC is overstepping its authority.
> 
> Literally, the email just says that the CC is now meeting regularly; what authority can it be overstepping?
> People speaking together and meeting is now forbidden?

"The Community Committee (CC) is here to arbitrage and make decisions when inter-personal conflicts occur in the project. It will decide quickly and take actions, for the sake of the project."
There are NO inter-personal conflicts ATM (very luckily everyone was happy
UNTIL the CC initiates conflicts)

The mail said: "Starting this week, we will hold a weekly internal panel to
discuss community matters and ensure more structured issue resolution.
One of our key goals is to address some of the lingering discussions
from 2024 while laying a strong foundation for the future."

discussion about structured issue resolution in FFmpeg are a matter of the
whole community and not the CC.
"laying a strong foundation for the future. (of FFmpeg)" is not something a
panel of 3 people who have never been elected for that can do behind closed
doors
I want to be part of these discussions for example. Iam one of the main
authors. And iam sure others also want to be part of these discussions

The last such closed door discussion, was VDD2024 and after that we had
months of defamation and mobbing.


> 
> > 3. About "internal panel", There should not be a "internal panel" dominated
> 
> CC was elected by GA. GA is composed of most of the active developers. This is not a random internal panel.

An election that was delayed by the vote superviser until a specific person
joined. Then 2 resigned
And now its not even publically known how many members this CC has.

thx

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

Does the universe only have a finite lifespan? No, its going to go on
forever, its just that you wont like living in it. -- Hiranya Peiri

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 7:18 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> Hi jb
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:11:39AM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, at 02:51, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> [...]
> > > 2. The CC is overstepping its authority.
> >
> > Literally, the email just says that the CC is now meeting regularly;
> what authority can it be overstepping?
> > People speaking together and meeting is now forbidden?
>
> "The Community Committee (CC) is here to arbitrage and make decisions when
> inter-personal conflicts occur in the project. It will decide quickly and
> take actions, for the sake of the project."
> There are NO inter-personal conflicts ATM (very luckily everyone was happy
> UNTIL the CC initiates conflicts)
>

To be completely honest, while I've been trying to be mostly professional
in our interactions, I still have an inter-personal conflict with you,
mostly related to my unfair and unilateral ban, or rather the fact that
that act had no repercussions whatsoever. I'd really like the CC to resolve
them and make sure we can keep working together without grudges. Also there
are a lot of pending issues from that time (the most grave one IMO, how a
mailing list admin unilaterally censors a thread) whose resolution we
should at least hear about.


> discussion about structured issue resolution in FFmpeg are a matter of the
> whole community and not the CC.
>

The CC is the sole body that has and /should/ have the power of suspending
or banning someone.
An independent body elected by the most active users, what else could you
want more?


> "laying a strong foundation for the future. (of FFmpeg)" is not something a
> panel of 3 people who have never been elected for that can do behind closed
> doors
> I want to be part of these discussions for example. Iam one of the main
> authors. And iam sure others also want to be part of these discussions


I don't think you should. You actively prevented the CC from operating
blocking several suspensions, because they didn't affect "the other side"
as well.
But even then, why didn't you candidate for the CC and be part of the
normal election process?

The last such closed door discussion, was VDD2024 and after that we had
> months of defamation and mobbing.
>

I thought the last closed discussion was about people going to NAB to have
a ffmpeg booth. Or did that never happen entirely?

Also just as a reminder...
being called out for mistreating your fellow developers and your own
project doesn't constitute mobbing, but rather it's just people trying to
explain you why they believe your behavior is actively harming this
community, especially coming from the most active developer

And finally
VDD2024 was not a closed discussion, everybody were able to join and the
notes were published immediately after

> > 3. About "internal panel", There should not be a "internal panel"
> dominated
> >
> > CC was elected by GA. GA is composed of most of the active developers.
> This is not a random internal panel.
>
> An election that was delayed by the vote superviser until a specific person
> joined. Then 2 resigned
> And now its not even publically known how many members this CC has.


This is a grave accusation and very revisionist view at what actually
happened.

Micheal, please seriously stop throwing a fit every time you get scared
that things might not go your way.
You say you want to work on releases and backporting cves? Then go do that
instead of reopening the pandora's box every time.
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[compn]

On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 23:41:14 +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:

> them and make sure we can keep working together without grudges. Also there
> are a lot of pending issues from that time (the most grave one IMO, how a
> mailing list admin unilaterally censors a thread) whose resolution we
> should at least hear about.

holding mails for moderation is not censorship. it would be nice if you
as a CC member would decrease the intensity of your accusations towards
me.

the CC's job is not to determine, declare, nor issue edicts of the ml
admins job duties.

as said moderation was thread wide and not on any individual developer,
there is no inter-personal conflict between me or anyone else. everyone
is equal in the eyes of the moderation. 

its possible that some developers are upset about being equals? i think
the CC could help those developers to understand mailing list
administration and moderation if they have an inter-personal conflict
with me.

i think i've sent my thoughts to the previous CC on this issue. but if
the new CC would like to talk, i'm available.

-compn
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 8:14 AM compn <ff@hawaiiantel.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 23:41:14 +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
>
> > them and make sure we can keep working together without grudges. Also
> there
> > are a lot of pending issues from that time (the most grave one IMO, how a
> > mailing list admin unilaterally censors a thread) whose resolution we
> > should at least hear about.
>
> holding mails for moderation is not censorship. it would be nice if you
> as a CC member would decrease the intensity of your accusations towards
> me.
>

I'm not a CC member

Sorry to ruffle your feathers, but I haven't brought up this issue in
month. The fact that people don't talk about it any more doesn't mean you
get to get away scott free of your actions, or that people should forget.
Once you face proper repercussions for your actions, or the CC decides it
was well within your power, then I'll stop bringing it up. Maybe ask
Micheal to stop filibustering the CC so that the proper course of action
can take place.


> the CC's job is not to determine, declare, nor issue edicts of the ml
> admins job duties.
>
> as said moderation was thread wide and not on any individual developer,
> there is no inter-personal conflict between me or anyone else. everyone
> is equal in the eyes of the moderation.
>
> its possible that some developers are upset about being equals? i think
> the CC could help those developers to understand mailing list
> administration and moderation if they have an inter-personal conflict
> with me.
>
> i think i've sent my thoughts to the previous CC on this issue. but if
> the new CC would like to talk, i'm available.


You should step down, that's the only honorable route left for any abuse of
power.
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Marth64]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the reply & thoughts.

To clarify on "internal panel" and "structured issue resolution", this
is with regards to unresolved complaints sent to CC, such as publicly
or privately reported interpersonal/CoC issues.
Some high ticket items directed to the CC from last year remain
unaddressed and we were elected to be accountable for this, so we have
to move forward in some way.
There are tough problem statements to unpack and it is not always simple.

The point I was trying to convey is we are going to approach, review,
and push to closure on reported issues in a methodical fashion.
We have set up a cadence to meet on items that our attention was
called to. Kind of like a standup meeting on the tasks we are assigned
to.
So the "panel" in that regard, is a check-in amongst ourselves. If we
feel other people or opinions need to be involved we will navigate
that bridge as we get there.

If CC is engaged for a task then we have to look into it and figure
out a plan or execution.
IIRC one main concern of the CC last year was there was limited
movement on problem solving.

"laying a strong foundation for the future" is with regards to us
putting a process in place and being a visibly effective CC.
The phrase is ambitious but focused on issues that are on our docket.
It's not a blanket statement for a revolution.

For example, laying a parallel hypothetical, this is as if the TC met
once a week to discuss "what's on our agenda this week? what actions
do we need to take? how do we clear roadblocks? what is our north star
for the future?"

Does this help?

Thank you,
Marth64
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2054 bytes --]

Hi Marth64

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 05:00:30PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Thanks for the reply & thoughts.
> 
> To clarify on "internal panel" and "structured issue resolution", this
> is with regards to unresolved complaints sent to CC, such as publicly
> or privately reported interpersonal/CoC issues.
> Some high ticket items directed to the CC from last year remain
> unaddressed and we were elected to be accountable for this, so we have
> to move forward in some way.
> There are tough problem statements to unpack and it is not always simple.

The mandate of the CC is to
"arbitrage and make decisions when inter-personal conflicts occur in the project. It will decide quickly and take actions, for the sake of the project."

The CC has ignored the mobbing from 2 developers
In fact it has blocked moderators from helping.
(not even mentioning the wasted time, blocking of STF 2025,
 delays in security fixes, ...) that where conseuqences of that

This went on for 2-3 months and one can easily write dozends of independant
complaints. But given that some hostility came directly from a CC member.
And the CC did little. Few complaints where actually submitted.

So what is this all now about exactly ?

It smells like some complaint will be used as pretext for the CC to extend
its mandate.
Something like "Theres a interpersonal conflict related to FFmpeg funds,
now the CC can write an oppinon on funds"
And a disagreement on funds isnt a interpersonal conflict in the first place

Whatever the exact cases this is about, it will take time away
from FFmpeg development. Even if we just have to go over
the past 4 months of debates and mails again and argue about it again

I just dont understand what this is supposed to be good for

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is that every 4 years
the population together is allowed to provide 1 bit of input to the government.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2025 at 8:27 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> Hi Marth64
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 05:00:30PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Thanks for the reply & thoughts.
> >
> > To clarify on "internal panel" and "structured issue resolution", this
> > is with regards to unresolved complaints sent to CC, such as publicly
> > or privately reported interpersonal/CoC issues.
> > Some high ticket items directed to the CC from last year remain
> > unaddressed and we were elected to be accountable for this, so we have
> > to move forward in some way.
> > There are tough problem statements to unpack and it is not always simple.
>
> The mandate of the CC is to
> "arbitrage and make decisions when inter-personal conflicts occur in the
> project. It will decide quickly and take actions, for the sake of the
> project."
>
> The CC has ignored the mobbing from 2 developers
> In fact it has blocked moderators from helping.
> (not even mentioning the wasted time, blocking of STF 2025,
>  delays in security fixes, ...) that where conseuqences of that


literally fake news
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 05:00:30PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
[...]

> It's not a blanket statement for a revolution.
>
> For example, laying a parallel hypothetical, this is as if the TC met
> once a week to discuss "what's on our agenda this week? what actions

The TC has no agenda. It handles cases one by one when there are cases.


> do we need to take? how do we clear roadblocks? what is our north star
> for the future?"

I dont know what you mean by "north star for the future"
but it sounds like its outside your mandate

Also id like to ask for every of your meetings to be recorded and made
public.

thx

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

Homeopathy is like voting while filling the ballot out with transparent ink.
Sometimes the outcome one wanted occurs. Rarely its worse than filling out
a ballot properly.

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le perjantaina 28. helmikuuta 2025, 21.29.53 UTC+2 Michael Niedermayer a écrit 
:
> Also id like to ask for every of your meetings to be recorded and made
> public.

Your request has been noted and it is hereby formally denied.

My fellow CC members and I have freedom of reunion and privacy rights. And 
obviously topics such as "occur[ences of] inter-personal conflicts" are 
naturally prone to infringe of third party privacy rights too, so it is 
unrealistic to publish CC discussion, even with the hypothetical assent of all 
CC members.

Likewise, email communications to CC and TC aliases are private. Snooping on 
them or archiving them on the FFmpeg MTA would actually be illegal. Thus we 
cannot and will not get access to the discussions of previous CC either.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Hagalund ny stad, f.d. Finska republik Nylands



_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1214 bytes --]

Hi jb

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:11:39AM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, at 02:51, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > 1. I agree we need discussions, transparency and maybe IRC or some other
> >    audio/video form of commuication can be tried. Such discussion should be
> >    public and open. And they must include admins and main authors.
> 
> Great, the mailing list is here for that. It is public and open.

communication is important.
If all project related communication is on the ML, then the ML alone
would be ok. But if significant discussions about the project happens
elsewhere, like in a meeting or in a cafe or pub after the meeting.
Then that should be accessable for everyone remotely. And especially
for the main authors and active developers.

This is not just about technical things. Its about knowing what
people care about, what they want changed, what they agree with.

If half the team doesnt know what the other half wants, thats
a seed for a conflict that could be avoided.

thx

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

Observe your enemies, for they first find out your faults. -- Antisthenes

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2025, 20:35 Michael Niedermayer, <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> Hi jb
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 12:11:39AM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025, at 02:51, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > 1. I agree we need discussions, transparency and maybe IRC or some
> other
> > >    audio/video form of commuication can be tried. Such discussion
> should be
> > >    public and open. And they must include admins and main authors.
> >
> > Great, the mailing list is here for that. It is public and open.
>
> communication is important.
> If all project related communication is on the ML, then the ML alone
> would be ok. But if significant discussions about the project happens
> elsewhere, like in a meeting or in a cafe or pub after the meeting.
> Then that should be accessable for everyone remotely. And especially
> for the main authors and active developers.
>

Hi Michael,

Was all the STF discussion around the first application done in public?

Kieran

>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3604 bytes --]

Hi Kieran

On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 08:13:11AM -0600, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
[...]
> Hi Michael,
> 
> Was all the STF discussion around the first application done in public?

No, jb contacted STF in the name of FFmpeg without any public discussion.
This crossed STFs own reaching out to FFmpeg. Which is how it was noticed

The mail below is from STF to jb.

After that i immedeatly asked both thilo and jb to talk with each other.
I also repeatedly asked for the STF stuff to be made public.
I quote a rather sarcastic example from me (in german) asking thilo at the end
of this mail

So again, we need more open communication, more forgiveness, more working
together and less distrust, some virtual hugs and smiles


From: Tara Tarakiyee <X>
To: jb@X
Cc: "Fiona Krakenbürger" <X>, Abigail Garner <X>
Subject: Regarding Your STF Application
Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2023 22:22

Dear Jean-Baptiste Kempf,

Thank you for your application to the Sovereign Tech Fund. We appreciate the interest, but have a few questions about the timing of this application. We have already reached out to ffmpeg maintainers through our scouting process and gotten a response and arranged a call. We explained how our funding works and asked that they go back to the ffmpeg maintainer community and come back to us with a joint proposal that is agreed upon by your existing governance structure.

Given the timing of your proposal, are we to infer that you knew about those conversations yet choose to apply independently? We much prefer to have one process ongoing at the time, so we ask that you refer back to that conversation and include your work there and we will continue considering our support for ffmpeg through our scouting. If that is not possible for some reason, please let us know.

Please keep in mind that our mission at STF is to empower FOSS infrastructure, so we support activities to improve security and maintenance, but very rarely support new feature development, except when there is a strong case for them in the public interest. Also it is important for us that any supported work has the support of the maintainer community.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best wishes,
Tara Tarakiyee
Sovereign Tech Fund
https://sovereigntechfund.de/

SPRIND GmbH
BUNDESAGENTUR
FÜR SPRUNGINNOVATIONEN

Lagerhofstraße 4
04103 Leipzig

Geschäftsführung: Berit Dannenberg, Rafael Laguna de la Vera
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Dr.-Ing. E. h. Peter Leibinger
Amtsgericht Leipzig – HRB 36977 – USt-ID DE328253854



Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 18:37:13 +0200
From: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
To: Thilo Borgmann <X>
Subject: Re: FFmpeg development support

> Michael, er hat bereits versucht, das alles im Dunkeln abzuwickeln. Er hat bereits einen Antrag eingereicht, den er _nicht_ geteilt hat und auch auf Nachfrage _nicht_ teilt. Nur dummerweise hat er uns von der Sache an sich erzählt und dummerweise, ist ihm das auf die Füße gefallen.
> Es gibt einen Grund, warum er darüber auch immernoch nicht redet, Michael. Warum denkst du, steht in seiner Mail nur "Habt ihr davon gehört?" ?...

Thilo dein Antrag ist public auf der mailing liste (und wiki) ?
nein?
wenn nein dann was ist es dunkles was du planst ?


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

The real ebay dictionary, page 2
"100% positive feedback" - "All either got their money back or didnt complain"
"Best seller ever, very honest" - "Seller refunded buyer after failed scam"

[-- 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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2025, 11:17 Michael Niedermayer, <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> Hi Kieran
>
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2025 at 08:13:11AM -0600, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
> wrote:
> [...]
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Was all the STF discussion around the first application done in public?
>
> No, jb contacted STF in the name of FFmpeg without any public discussion.
> This crossed STFs own reaching out to FFmpeg. Which is how it was noticed
>
> The mail below is from STF to jb.
>
> After that i immedeatly asked both thilo and jb to talk with each other.
> I also repeatedly asked for the STF stuff to be made public.
> I quote a rather sarcastic example from me (in german) asking thilo at the
> end
> of this mail
>
> So again, we need more open communication, more forgiveness, more working
> together and less distrust, some virtual hugs and smiles
>
>
> From: Tara Tarakiyee <X>
> To: jb@X
> Cc: "Fiona Krakenbürger" <X>, Abigail Garner <X>
> Subject: Regarding Your STF Application
> Date: Tuesday, 30 May 2023 22:22
>
> Dear Jean-Baptiste Kempf,
>
> Thank you for your application to the Sovereign Tech Fund. We appreciate
> the interest, but have a few questions about the timing of this
> application. We have already reached out to ffmpeg maintainers through our
> scouting process and gotten a response and arranged a call. We explained
> how our funding works and asked that they go back to the ffmpeg maintainer
> community and come back to us with a joint proposal that is agreed upon by
> your existing governance structure.
>
> Given the timing of your proposal, are we to infer that you knew about
> those conversations yet choose to apply independently? We much prefer to
> have one process ongoing at the time, so we ask that you refer back to that
> conversation and include your work there and we will continue considering
> our support for ffmpeg through our scouting. If that is not possible for
> some reason, please let us know.
>
> Please keep in mind that our mission at STF is to empower FOSS
> infrastructure, so we support activities to improve security and
> maintenance, but very rarely support new feature development, except when
> there is a strong case for them in the public interest. Also it is
> important for us that any supported work has the support of the maintainer
> community.
>
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tara Tarakiyee
> Sovereign Tech Fund
> https://sovereigntechfund.de/
>
> SPRIND GmbH
> BUNDESAGENTUR
> FÜR SPRUNGINNOVATIONEN
>
> Lagerhofstraße 4
> 04103 Leipzig
>
> Geschäftsführung: Berit Dannenberg, Rafael Laguna de la Vera
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Dr.-Ing. E. h. Peter Leibinger
> Amtsgericht Leipzig – HRB 36977 – USt-ID DE328253854
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 18:37:13 +0200
> From: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> To: Thilo Borgmann <X>
> Subject: Re: FFmpeg development support
>
> > Michael, er hat bereits versucht, das alles im Dunkeln abzuwickeln. Er
> hat bereits einen Antrag eingereicht, den er _nicht_ geteilt hat und auch
> auf Nachfrage _nicht_ teilt. Nur dummerweise hat er uns von der Sache an
> sich erzählt und dummerweise, ist ihm das auf die Füße gefallen.
> > Es gibt einen Grund, warum er darüber auch immernoch nicht redet,
> Michael. Warum denkst du, steht in seiner Mail nur "Habt ihr davon gehört?"
> ?...
>
> Thilo dein Antrag ist public auf der mailing liste (und wiki) ?
> nein?
> wenn nein dann was ist es dunkles was du planst ?
>

Please (as per your own declaration of transparency) therefore supply the
rest of the email chain including all discussion with Thilo and/or other
parties (e.g SPI) about STF.

Kieran

>
_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg Community Committee – Updates & Next Steps

[James Almer]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2989 bytes --]

On 2/25/2025 10:51 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi Marth64
> 
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 05:04:00PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
>> Dear FFmpeg Community,
>>
>> We’d like to share an update on the work of the Community Committee
>> (CC). Starting this week, we will hold a weekly internal panel to
>> discuss community matters and ensure more structured issue resolution.
>>
>> One of our key goals is to address some of the lingering discussions
>> from 2024 while laying a strong foundation for the future. We
>> recognize that progress will be gradual, but we are committed to
>> working as a team and presenting unified messaging to improve
>> communication and transparency. We expect to deliver communications
>> soon on some issues.
>>
>> We look forward to continuing to serve the FFmpeg community and
>> fostering a collaborative and productive environment. Thank you for
>> your ongoing support and engagement.
>>
>> On behalf of the CC,
> 
> There are 3+ parts here
> 
> 1. I agree we need discussions, transparency and maybe IRC or some other
>     audio/video form of commuication can be tried. Such discussion should be
>     public and open. And they must include admins and main authors.
> 
> 2. The CC is overstepping its authority.

How? What part of the above makes you think that? He only stated they 
are now discussing and going through the 2024 stuff.

> 
> 3. There is a huge growing backlog of increasing development issues

Yes, he said as much.

>     id like to work on without having to fight and argue over governance
>     Id like to backport security fixes, make new releases.
> 
> About "internal panel", There should not be a "internal panel" dominated
> by videolan developers discussing FFmpeg. If there is such a panel, it
> should be the main authors, the people who did spend a significant time
> of their life working on FFmpeg. (and you should be included as you seem
> good at this, and i should be in it because iam one of the main authors
> amongth other things)

If you wanted to be part of the CC and its deliberations, why didn't you 
volunteer for it during last vote? You were in the previous CC, and you 
would have surely been among the five voted if so.

For what is worth, you, even if not part of the CC but as the one that 
made several accusations (and the target of another bunch), could 
request to be part of the deliberations regarding those specific issues.
Is this codified anywhere? If not, it could be drafted and a vote be 
held for such addition.

> 
> Thank you
> 
> PS: this is just my initial thought/reply and i may have a better idea
> after sleeping over this
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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".


[-- Attachment #1.2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 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".