Re: [FFmpeg-devel] VDD 2023, FFmpeg meeting notes, (23-11-2023, 4pm, Dublin)

From: "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje@gmail.com>
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] VDD 2023, FFmpeg meeting notes, (23-11-2023, 4pm, Dublin)
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 15:21:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEEMt2=DixSXH5p4xBE7grFHaO8zGwVP-FczLXfFku_fCbWv3Q@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230924164537.GJ3543730@pb2>

Hi Michael,

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 6:45 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> I disagree
> * Who is and is not a member of the GA is in flux, there can be disputes
>   even on GA membership.
> * You cannot have something owned by a group like that. There needs to be
>   an individual like a treassurer who has the actual key.
>   So you again trust one person, this is not different from what it is
>   now.
>
> Also democracies can make really bad decissions. Which iam sure you have
> never seen occur ;)
>
> And last but not least, this is attackable even unintentionally
> you just need for a single moment a majority in the GA that is
> bad. This is not hard to reach, a group can easily pose as enough
> active developers to achieve 51% and if the domain then really is
> legally controlled by the GA. yeah goodby domain
> this is not a scenario possible with fabrice having theretical veto
> power.
> So Yes, i strongly favor fabrice keeping this veto power.
>

Yes, these are good points / concerns, and I share most of this. (I think
it's important to state this explicitly.) So, the question is: do you think
we can find a middle ground here where you and I (and other GA members,
obviously) might agree on what legal entity could be the holder of this
"certificate of ownership"? And do you think it would make sense that in
practice, one person elected by (for example) the TC or GA actually
practically "has" that key, in the role of executing the "will of the
assembly" (similar to treasurer, indeed)? I think we're essentially trying
to define a democratic governance model here. Or do you explicitly think
that Fabrice owning it is the only good way forward? (More like a
benevolent king model.)

And sure i can probably word above mail more convincingly if i go
> over it 3 times and send it tomorrow but i belive you understand
> my point even with it just roughly worded
>

<signal> Thumbs-up-emoji.</signal>

Ronald
_______________________________________________
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".