On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 2:59 PM Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > for privacy reasons I must use JB's quote as given in the archives and > need to drag this reply up one level. If the addresses in the > redacted part need to be referred to, they shall be referred to as > AddressA and AddressB. > > I will address more replies once time allows, JB's reply is actually the > one mail that addresses the cause of this whole mess so I reply to it now > (asap). > > I will also start the repeat vote now and everybody can hold their horses > before going to flamewar. Depending on JB's explanations, he might still > prove that the old vote is valid and this repeat vote becomes void. Anyway, > if he cannot, this needs to follow the given timeframe. > > On we go: > > > Am 11.11.23 um 10:54 schrieb Jean-Baptiste Kempf: > > On Sat, 11 Nov 2023, at 08:22, Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel wrote: > >> Neither does this list of 51 people [1] correlate to the 54 authorized > voters > >> (distinct email addresses) the CIVS system actually counted, see [3]. > > > > And instead of you ASKING for that, you launch another vote? That's your > solution? > > Very well, then let me ask you to share, even privately if you have > privacy concerns, the following data that might help to invalidate my > claims and probably shortcut the whole when what and how questions in the > other half of the mail: > - The file(s) you used for the first and second batch. I'd assume you did > the editing you mention below in the same file, so it's of course > reasonable if you therefore could only share the one file used for the > second batch after editing. > - The mail the poll supervisor gets with the subject like "CIVS poll > created: <poll name>" so that I can look at the control panel. The mail > says you should keep it private so nobody can interrupt with the poll in > progress. The vote is over, results known and a lockfile set so nothing can > happen anymore to the vote. > > > > Just as as remark, YOU are running the voting system, and have access to > infra, so YOU can check it. > > > > > > The answer is simple, Linjie Fu has had several emails in use, (one with > and one without justin) and one of them is bouncing. I remembered that > after sending the first batch, so I added it back, knowing that he/she > could only vote once. > > Same reason for Ruiling Song who has both an Intel and a gmail email. > > Finally, in the emails, there was REDACTED FOR GDPR/PRIVACY. It was > probably the reason. > > This is not completely clear to me so let me ask for clarification here as > well. > > The logfile (attached) says: > The first batch sent out were 53 mails (from 10:11:19 to 10:12:20) > The second batch sent out were 53 mails (from 10:16:20 to 10:16:48) > One single mail was sent (at 12:55:40) > In the end, the counter is at 54. > In the end, you named 51 distinct people. > > So the first batch must have been 53 distinct mail addresses, raising the > counter from 0 to 53. > The second batch must also have contained 53 distinct mail addresses > because 53 mails have been sent. > After the second batch, the counter must have been at 53 or 54 already, > depending on wether or not the one single mail that was sent afterwards was > already in one of the batches or yet another distinct mail address > (counter++). > > What I understand from your simple answer, is you changed two mail > addresses in between batch one and two (Linjie & Ruiling). > That would have risen the counter from 53 to 55 after sending the second > batch because the two corrected addresses are distinct and counted. > Depending on wether or not the one single mail that was sent afterwards > was already in one of the batches or yet another distinct mail address > (counter++), > the counter would have to be 55 or 56. > > Can you clarify what mail addresses you changed from what into what > between batch one and batch two? > Can you clarify if the single mail that was sent afterwards was already in > one of the batches or yet another distinct mail address? > > Thank you for officially killing project. > > > > > And that's why you see 3 more emails than names. And that cannot change > anything to the vote. > > > > jb > > > > -Thilo_______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel > > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email > ffmpeg-devel-requ...@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-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
