On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 15:17:31 +0100 Michael Niedermayer <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > Hi all > > I was working in the last few days a little on drafting a democratization > process > > Heres the current draft: (very preliminary and will certainly change alot) > also I still need to find out, if more than 3 developer actually care about > this > > But either way, this is intended to be an open and public process not a > process behind closed doors > > Iam posting this mainly to show that i have not been ignoring the call for > democratization > (originally wanted to wait longer so its more fleshed out before posting but > well, posting > now, maybe it makes some people happier) > > Summary: > People will have shares proportional to their contribution to FFmpeg.
Just to nitpick the terminology a bit: This would no longer be a democracy, but rather an oligarchy, since the vast majority of the voting shares would be held in a very small handful of people on account of the exponential distribution of commit count per contributor. > The voting power will depend on how recent the last commit was. And the > main > author will have a veto right and a 2/3 majority will be needed for > "Constitutional" changes. > Persistent trolls can be excluded from becoming shareholders. > As new contributions are made, new shares will be created. This will > happen on a quarterly base. > > Shares: > 1 commit in git master branch == 1 shares > 1 fixed ticket in trac == > 1 mail in ffmpeg-devel == > > Time Multiplier: > Provides an incentive to return and contribute again, > favors recently active contributors Do you mean: #votes = sum[ time_multiplier(commit) for commit in git master ] or: #votes = # of commits in git master * time_multiplier(last_commit) > > Majority > Constitutional changes require 2/3 majority > > Veto-holder > There is one veto holder, they can block decissions that > would cause harm to FFmpeg. The veto holder must always > have named a successor. In case the chain of successors > breaks. The available person with most authored commits in git master > becomes the new veto holder. How is this meaningfully changeng the status quo of you having veto power over everything? In general I am not sure what this proposal would actually change, except using a more complicated system to determine who has the most power; which in the end, of course, will be you. > > thx > > -- > Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB > > "Nothing to hide" only works if the folks in power share the values of > you and everyone you know entirely and always will -- Tom Scott > > _______________________________________________ > 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".
