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

[Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>]

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".