> On Feb 20, 2024, at 12:41 PM, Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> > wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: >> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 15:01:11) >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: >>> [...] >>>> their preferred wording, and then we can have the GA vote on it. >>> >>> Before this GA vote, we need another extra member discussion/vote. >>> Because the last GA reset droped several developers from the GA >> >> I see neither why would we "need" such a vote, or why should it be >> related to this one. > > Because thats what was done in the past. > The extra member vote was done between a GA reset and the following votes > like the CC/TC votes > The exception was the STF vote because there just was not enough time > > We should do this consistently, and > given that we reset the GA every 6 months, thats the natural rate > at which to do a extra member vote (unless there is no other vote then > the extra member vote can be skiped as it would make no difference)
It's not clear from https://www.ffmpeg.org/community.html that the extra members should be refreshed every time the GA is updated or that a vote should get held up if that hasn't happened yet. > Additional members are added to the General Assembly through a vote after > proposal by a member of the General Assembly. They are part of the GA for two > years, after which they need a confirmation by the GA. It looks like a request to add extra members to the GA should be done explicitly by someone requesting a vote on it, which can be done at any time. Waiting until something else comes up for a vote seems suboptimal because it then delays that first decision by at least a couple of weeks (given the rules for voting). - Cosmin _______________________________________________ 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".
