On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote: > Hi, > > I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I > propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a > different time if this can't suit you. > > The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published > at the end of the meeting. > > This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting > that will be held in Paris at the next VDD > (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg > developers who will attend it. > > I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC): > 1. ABI compatibility policy
> 2. general policy decision process heres a suggestion, maybe useful as input for discussions on Saturday ... FFmpeg used and uses "unanimous consent" in patch reviews any person could make a suggestion to improve a patch and it has to be taken care of one way or another before the patch is ok. This system worked quite well almost all the time. So i would suggest to use the same / a similar system for policy decisions * Everyone should be able to comment and propose options/choices * There should be enough time to understand, discuss and amend proposals * People should try to understand the other people and avoid strawman arguments and other non constructive discussion tactics, people/the commuity should step in if discussions become non constructive and hostile and try to get people back toward constructive discussion. * People should be able to declare reservations to a proposal without blocking the proposal and as a seperate choice veto it in a blocking fashion. A veto should be public with full name of the developer, reason why it is bad for the community/project and ideally a alternative proposal. Also developers vetoing a proposal must be willing and able to work on finding an better solution. * The authors of proposals should try to amend proposals based on raised issues & reservations and restart the process if changes where made. There could be a maximum number of such restarts after which only vetos would block If this doesnt work due to too many vetos then it could be adjusted to require 2 or more vetos to reject a proposal, but IMHO i dont think this would be needed. Simply having ones full name in public with a veto should result in people using the veto right wisely. A "unanimous consent" system also should push toward cooperation and discussions intended to find compromises and understanding the others. Because simply trying to be loud and push and troll are unlikely effective means to find an agreement. also such a system, if it works, would ensure noones oppinion or suggestion is just pushed aside [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct answer.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
