Hi [...] > > > I hope there is noone who belives one can remove a persons admin powers for > > no reason, put oneself in power instead and have that person still be > > a volunteer working in that project afterwards. > > > > ronald, you are someone knowing about buisness, I think you know this. If a > > CEO is or other > > executive is voted out against his will. > > Do you see yourself as the CEO here? Why?
no, i dont. > > You publicly resigned as this project's leader 9 years ago. Yet after > all this time you treat it as a matter of course that you and only you > can unilaterally decide who is trustworthy enough to be root, get git > push, or any other infrastructure access. About root, I have always looked for professional admins within the team and given them access. When we didnt need anyone, i looked less When we very dearly needed more manpower the threshold was lower. The most recent addition is Timo, his day job is to "tend to servers" Nikolay is the man from the ISP/Hoster/data center. You know the guy who can tigthen the screws if they come loose or replace hw Thresh and Arpi where tending to servers before FFmpeg even existed do i unilaterally decide who i trust as root, maybe. I mean its a yes but i definitly listen to other peoples oppinions so in that respect its not unilaterally. If people where to tell me they dont trust someone, i would avoid giving that person access. OTOH if people where to tell me someone is a really important addition i would give her access if the arguments make sense. People need to talk with me more about who should and should not have access. If people want that we remove people who have been inactive for over 3 years or something like that. We can, It just requires people to tell me thats what we want. I mean like 3-4 people replying here with a +1 and noone with a -1 And of course id need to figure out how to identify who was 3+ years inactive About adding people, I oppose adding people for no good reason. Otherwise who should be added for what reason ? About git access We have a documented and public process since a very long time. people need to be in MAINTAINERS to get git write. to get into MAINTAINERS a patch adding them needs to go through the normal public review process. In the huge list there are exceptions some people did not want access some people send patches that where below our standards. Sometimes i forget adding someone. Again, if something looks wrong, talk with me about it please. If you talked previously and felt something was not resolved, talk with me again. Again my main point is, if i made a decission that you disagree with talk with me. I dont belive we wont find some resolution. I mean if theres a reason to add or remove access i will agree OTOH if theres no reason iam confident you will agree that nothing needs changing > > Furthermore you object to this being discussed, deny the issue even > exists, and in at least one case you wanted to ban someone for raising > it. Those are all tactics authoritarian governments use to suppress > opposition. > > > What we need is a open dialoge, a calm discussion about what the underlaying > > issues are (if there are any). And to work towards correcting them. > > How can we have a discussion that includes you when you refuse to > acknowledge there is something to discuss? I fail to understand these last two paragraphs or what they refer to thx [...] -- Michael this signature was lost to too much copy and pasting
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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".
