FYI: Here is my experience with Python.org Step 1: If it the decision is not so important (simple patch etc.) and if 3 reviewers say yes, it will be merged. Also, it seems there are no maintainers for specific parts of the code, but instead they have "reviewers" and only reviewers can review the patch. And once they approved the patch, the patch will be submitted automated system and "reviewers" do not merge the patch by themselves.
Step 2: If it is decided that the patch or change is worthy of escalation, it will be reviewed by more people. (I recall 6 but I am not sure) and they vote. (I am not sure which condition justify escalation.) Then, they will repeat the voting and escalation process and the final decision is made by a vote of the "committee" (majority rules, I am also not sure how they choose the committee etc. the python.org person might have told me but I don't remember..) ---- I got really confused when I first came to FFmpeg. I thought it would be very similar to Python, and I didn't know that an Open Source Free Software Project could be run so dramatically different.. but it made sense though. and I see a lot of good things about the existing FFmpeg system too.. ---- I think deciding point would be.. (I am just summarizing what is discussed so far.) - Deciding what events or arguments can causes/trigger the escalation. (I guess it means when do you need more than arguing over the email?) - Once it is decided to be escalated/vote, how the vote leads to the decisions. (majority rules or veto rules?) (and who qualifies to vote for after escalation?) (Well, basically current patch review is everyone votes right?) - Well, you can always try one and you can come back later to see how well it is working. (you need to test any system so...and there will be one problem in one system and the other (oh democracy..).. so.. You can see how happy you are and come back next year..or next time. now your guys are leaderless by the leader's own decision and your guys are pretty okay.. so i think you are fine. :) ) -- -- On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> wrote: > >> Le quintidi 25 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Michael Niedermayer a écrit : >> > I have a few problems with using the UN security council as >> > comparission >> > [..] > >> The project needs a way of making a decision when people do not agree. > > > +1, that's exactly what I meant. > > (Thank you for putting it into words.) > > Ronald > _______________________________________________ > ffmpeg-devel mailing list > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org > http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
