On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 22:06:11 -0300 James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/26/2024 9:51 PM, Niklas Haas wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 15:59:06 -0300 James Almer <jamr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/26/2024 12:07 PM, Kieran Kunhya wrote: > >>> On Wed, Dec 25, 2024 at 1:31 PM Michael Niedermayer > >>> <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Community, Community Commitee, Moderators > >>>> > >>> > >>> Your removal of this message as of 1504 GMT 26/12/2024 is completely > >>> unacceptable with one days notice posted on a public holiday in most > >>> countries. > >>> Furthermore, you make regular allegations based on conspiracy theories > >>> against me and others in the project without consequence. > >>> Yet, a largely factual criticism of your behaviour from Vittorio is > >>> censored immediately. > >> > >> This is a he-said-she-said situation. Both sides of the discussion > >> accuse the other of defamation, to the point things escalated to absurd > >> levels. I have already lost the plot and don't even know what riled > >> people so much. > >> > >> I don't want a list of accusations from Vittorio, you, or Michael, and > >> also don't want people to start throwing insults again, but, politely > >> and clearly, what is the core issue here? What is the problem that if > >> solved, would make everyone finally calm down? Is it the thing about > >> transparency and management? What else needs to be done that hasn't yet > >> be done for either of those. > > > > Having read (but not participated in) a good chunk of the recent > > discussions, > > here is my attempt at a summarization of the core issue: FFmpeg brands > > itself > > a democratic project, but it effectively runs on a "benevolent dictator for > > life" model. The main source of frustration is this disconnect between what > > the relevant parties think ought to be, and what is. One side clearly wants > > to > > move the needle towrds decentralization of power, and the other side clearly > > wants to retain, or even strengthen, a centralized power model. > > > > There are several tangential discussions to this main point, which as best > > as > > I can tell, are merely being used as leverage to support their relevant > > side, > > or to try and gain some slight amounts of power either way (e.g. discussions > > about documentation vs obfuscation of infrastructure). > > > > I think that ultimately, the only thing that can be done here is for > > Michael, > > the as of today still *de facto* project leader, to decide whether a > > democratization of FFmpeg is in order. The outcomes I can see are: > > > > 1. Michael agrees to democratize FFmpeg. The GA holds a "vote of no > > confidence" > > against him. > > > > 1a) Michael loses, and transfers root and DNS rights to whatever party the > > GA > > decides should replace him. The rest of the infrastructure flows > > downstream > > from there. The community picks up the pieces from there and rebuilds > > under > > whatever management process the GA votes on. > > Can't this outcome happen without DNS changing hands? I'm not exactly > sure the GA, with it's current low requirements for membership, should > have control of the domains. > Can't DNS still remain in Fabrice (or Michael's) hands? Everything, like > changing hosts for all infrastructure (Gitea/forejo/gitlab migration to > *anywhere* included), can still be done by GA decisions that way. No > reasonable request should be denied.
If the bar is 'not trusting unknown third parties', then I don't see why not. I wrote that paragraph under the assumption that the bar is 'not trusting Michael (and his friends)', in which case DNS remaining in control of a party that the community would have decided to vote out of power seems a bit odd. > If there's some legal way for Fabrice, as the trademark owner, to regain > control of the DNS if he deems it necessary, then maybe some legal > entity can be made to effectively manage it (and not one individual), > with the TC being in effective control of it. That seems to me like more of an implementation detail for scenario 1a, rather than a question that will get us closer to resolving the core issue. > > > > > 1b) Michael wins, and anybody who is unhappy with this result will simply > > have > > to accept the democratically elected outcome or else change their > > argumentative standpoint from pro-democracy to anti-Michael. > > > > 2. Michael disagrees to democratize FFmpeg, claims to support a democratic > > process but ignores (or otherwise blocks) the GA vote, or simply ignores > > the issue in hopes it will go away; leading to: > > > > 2a) Proponents of a democratic FFmpeg accept this fact and either cease > > their > > position, or else continue bickering on the mailing list for the rest > > of eternity. > > > > 2b) The project splits in two (again), and a whole lot of very nasty power > > games decide who gets to keep what names, trademarks, infrastructure > > elements, and so on. > > > > For simplicity, I am assuming (based on what I can see) that Fabrice and > > other > > de-facto moderators and long time (root) administrators of various > > infrastructure > > are sufficiently loyal to Michael to follow along with whatever he decides. > > > > With this in mind, it seems clear to me that no amount of discussion amongst > > the community can change the *matter of fact* that it is Michael who > > (directly > > or indirectly) holds the keys to power, and therefore Michael who can > > almost unilaterally decide whether we tread down path 1 or 2. > > > > For what it's worth, we currently appear to be stuck in the scenario 2a for > > the past year (or more). > > > > I hope I'm not completely misrepresenting the situation here, but do correct > > me if I'm way off. > > > > Happy holidays, > > -Niklas > > > >> > >> And as part of the CC (until the new one is finally formed), i also will > >> inform everyone that this and other threads may be moderated if things > >> keep going off the rails, with a proper announcement if so. Same for > >> moderating users if insults keep flying around. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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". > > _______________________________________________ > 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".
