On 12/26/2024 10:29 PM, Niklas Haas wrote:
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, ModeratorsYour 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.
I don't think the issue is not trusting Michael, but that things aren't happening because it all currently depends on him agreeing.
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.
It's a question to ensure 1a is guaranteed to be successful. Everyone wants to move to gitlab/forejo already. The entry bar for new blood is too high with the current ML + git send-email/format-patch style.
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital 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".
