Le quintidi 25 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > I have a few problems with using the UN security council as > comparission
I agree that this comparison is not very good, but I do not think that your fist mail about vetoes and unanimous consensus address the issue. Discussing the best option and trying to all agree is already how the project work. There is no need to codify it by calling objections vetoes. The problem happens when the project does not manage to reach unanimous consensus. The more people are involved in the project, the more likely it is to happen. If we are talking about merging, remember why the fork happened in the first place: because people did not agree. If the same people come together again, they will disagree again. The project needs a way of making a decision when people do not agree. The process of making that not-unanimous decision must be codified, so that people who do not like the outcome can not contest it. And the process needs to be codified while we mostly agree, because we need to agree on the process. Otherwise, people could try to propose a process that favours the outcome they prefer, or be accused of doing so. At the very least, the project probably needs some kind of voting process to make important and controversial decisions. It needs to express who can vote, and how much weight each person has, how to call for a vote, how to vote (delay, secret or public ballot), how to combine the ballots into a result (if it is not a yes/no question, see Condorcet's paradoxes and Arrows's theorem). Of course, most of it can be imitated from other projects who already have that kind of procedure. And of course, we should all bear in mind that this is only a last resort, when we have utterly failed to agree. Another point: disagreements of that kind happen because of non-technical considerations, basically for reasons of taste. There is not one side right and the other side wrong, there are just people who give different weight to different kind of annoyances. This can happen for small things as well as big ones, and we do not want to call for a vote every time someone wants to add a workaround for a broken compiler while someone else wants to tell the users to get a working one. Therefore, I believe a lightweight decision making process would be useful as well. And the simplest solution would be to just have someone make the decision. Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
