On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:21 PM Niklas Haas <ffm...@haasn.xyz> wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:51:27 +0100 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > > Niklas Haas (12025-01-29): > > > I think the most important crux of the problem is a fundamental > disagreement > > > between Michael and the "community" (for lack of a better term) about > the role > > > of the CC (and by extension, the GA). > > > > That is a very biassed way of stating it. > > > > For one thing, it is not Michael alone on one side. > > As I pointed out in the past, I am implicitly assuming that Timo, Fabrice, > and > other current holders of admin rights would go along with whatever Michael > decides, so that makes Michael alone the only person who is blocking the > will of > the CC (and by extension, the GA). > > If you have reason to believe otherwise, then indeed the situation is more > complicated. And then we may have a third faction consisting of some > subset of > (Michael, Timo, Fabrice, and possibly other people we were not made aware > of). > > > *Some members* of > > what you call community have expressed violent opposition to Michael. > > But *other members* have expressed, support for Michael, yet other > > members have agreed to arguments on both side successively, and the > > majority have not expressed anything. > > The CC was elected by a majority of the GA, so for all intents and > purposes, > the CC is the closest representation of the majority opinion as we are > likely to ever have. > > > > > Furthermore, you will notice that the people who oppose Michael the most > > violently are mostly people who initiated the failed hostile take-over > > 15 years ago (hence the importance of learning from history), who sided > > with the resulting fork or who work closely with them. > > Yes, obviously. That is exactly why I think that another fork is a likely > outcome at this point in time. > > > > > That tells your these people who oppose Michael the most violently are > > not adverse to hurting the project if it further their needs. They do > > tread FFmpeg as a community, they treat it as a resource to be milked. > > Since acting in the best interest of the community is a defining trait > > of the concept, they should probably not be considered such. > > This is a fallacious argument. From the point of view of the anti-Michael > faction, it is Michael's presence that is hurting the project the most. So > you > could say the exact same thing about Michael's actions, with the same > circular justification. > > > > > > Michael is under the impression that they > > > (should) serve a mere advisory role, with Michael himself having final > say in > > > matters both technical and non-technical. > > > > Michael wanted a genuine democracy but is now realizing it leads to very > > bad outcomes. > > This seems like a direct contradiction of reality. Michael has repeatedly > made it clear that the community should *not* be in charge. It also goes > against what we established above, which is that people are leaving the > project precisely because it is *not* democratically run. > Thanks for the summary Niklas, it is pretty on point, and well articulated. -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ 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".
