> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Vittorio Giovara
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 1:14 AM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> On Fri, Jan 31,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:22 AM Soft Works <
softworkz-at-hotmail@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> > That does not mean it would be worth trying something different. I
> > already
> > listed the incidents I've just seen happen before my eyes in this
> > mailing
> > list and these are not fun incidents. I
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Vittorio Giovara
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 10:46 AM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 202
development discussions and patches > de...@ffmpeg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 9:02 AM Nicolas George
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Vittorio Giovara (12025-01-30):
> > > > No, what we're seeing is a
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Vittorio Giovara
> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 7:35 AM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> On Thu, Jan 30,
Hi Niklas
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 12:43:13AM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:33:21 +0100 Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > Heres my current "work in progress": (sending that before fosdem, so people
> > can discuss if they like)
> >
> > Goals:
> > The prop
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:21 PM Niklas Haas wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:51:27 +0100 Nicolas George 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)
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 9:02 AM Nicolas George wrote:
> Vittorio Giovara (12025-01-30):
> > No, what we're seeing is a few representatives of the community
>
> Nobody appointed them.
>
> Nobody appointed you.
>
> I am more representative of the community than anybody who has been
> bullying Micha
On 29/01/2025 12:52, Soft Works wrote:
[...]
for (i=0; i<12; i++) {
print("You did this you did that");
}
if (!()) {
for (i=0; i<1000; i++) {
sendEmail("");
}
}
Sounds like the accusations are more a leverage than a concern..?
Sounds like you are not adding anythi
Vittorio Giovara (12025-01-30):
> No, what we're seeing is a few representatives of the community
Nobody appointed them.
Nobody appointed you.
I am more representative of the community than anybody who has been
bullying Michael to leave.
___
ffmpeg-dev
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 12:27 AM Soft Works <
softworkz-at-hotmail@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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 p
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 9:33 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Heres my current "work in progress": (sending that before fosdem, so
> people can discuss if they like)
>
> Goals:
> The proposed changes aim to improve the General Assembly's structure
> to ensure inclusivity, fairness,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:49 PM Soft Works <
softworkz-at-hotmail@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Leo
> > Izen
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:39 PM
> > To: ffmpeg-devel
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:45 PM Nicolas George wrote:
> Marth64 (12025-01-29):
> > Help me understand your version so we can make a table to contrast?
>
> Once again: learn from history.
>
> What we are seeing here is a small group of people with some skills in
> social engineering bullying Mich
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:36 PM Nicolas George wrote:
> > Yes, obviously. That is exactly why I think that another fork is a likely
> > outcome at this point in time.
>
> Then the only viable strategy is to make sure the people who fork are
> the harmful ones.
>
So you're leaving? Don't let the
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:33:21 +0100 Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Heres my current "work in progress": (sending that before fosdem, so people
> can discuss if they like)
>
> Goals:
> The proposed changes aim to improve the General Assembly's structure to
> ensure inclusivity, fai
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Niklas Haas
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:22 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Leo
> Izen
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:39 PM
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization work in progress draft v2
>
> On 1/29/25 3:33 PM, Michael Niede
Leo Izen (12025-01-29):
> I have been silent on this for a very long time, but I would like to point
> out at this point that Michael has approximately five times as many commits
> as the next-most prolific contributor (Andreas).
We can add that Michael's commits tend to be more complex.
This is
Marth64 (12025-01-29):
> Help me understand your version so we can make a table to contrast?
Once again: learn from history.
What we are seeing here is a small group of people with some skills in
social engineering bullying Michael and manipulating occasional
contributors in order to take control
Niklas Haas (12025-01-29):
> > if people are going to fork, then fork. ffmpeg has plenty of active and
> > inactive forks. its not the end of the world. just a fork.
> I thought we agreed that it's best to avoid this outcome if possible?
We agree on no such thing. If banning a few people who do no
On 1/29/25 3:33 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
Heres my current "work in progress": (sending that before fosdem, so people can
discuss if they like)
Goals:
The proposed changes aim to improve the General Assembly's structure to
ensure inclusivity, fairness, and resilience against
Niklas Haas (12025-01-29):
> 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,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 06:12:30 -1000 compn wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:16:29 +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
>
> > 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
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:51:27 +0100 Nicolas George 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).
>
Hi Nicolas:
> Please do not accept uncritically what a greedy minority limply
> supported by a silent majority wants to pass as the will of the
> community.
Help me understand your version so we can make a table to contrast?
Thanks
___
ffmpeg-devel mail
Marth64 (12025-01-29):
> * The community wants
Please do not accept uncritically what a greedy minority limply
supported by a silent majority wants to pass as the will of the
community.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg
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 Mic
Hi all
Heres my current "work in progress": (sending that before fosdem, so people can
discuss if they like)
Goals:
The proposed changes aim to improve the General Assembly's structure to
ensure inclusivity, fairness, and resilience against attacks. The key goals are
as follows:
Increa
Hi Kieran:
Trying to distill to a start of discussion points at the high level
(without GPT).
Converting the statements, from (issue)->(Michael) to (issue)->(effect):
* The community wants the GA/TC/CC to be sovereign, but there is a
BDOL model too which is not easily compatible, causing uncertai
Hi Ben,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 11:12 AM compn wrote:
> we can see how badly something ran by GA vote works right now. with our
> own eyes. ffmpeg just had a vote for the CC and two developers
> immediately quit working in the CC. why did we just waste all that
> time with a vote then?
That's
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 6:27 PM Marth64 wrote:
>
> Here is an idea,
> Can we try to lay out the friction points in a table or bullet format
> where we can separate the issue from emotion and direct name calling?
>
> For example,
> " * Community has issue ABC but we can't move forward because senio
Here is an idea,
Can we try to lay out the friction points in a table or bullet format
where we can separate the issue from emotion and direct name calling?
For example,
" * Community has issue ABC but we can't move forward because senior
leaders don't agree"
" * Community has issue XYZ but we can
Hi Soft Works,
> So I apologize for the misunderstanding. I didn't intend to be rude or hurt
> anybody's feelings, I just meant to express for what it's commonly used and
> didn't mean to take the conversation some levels downwards.
It's okay. You're entitled to share your opinion too. I was not
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Soft Works
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 6:23 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
>
>
> > -Or
Hello all,
The thread is passionate but I'm requesting help from everyone to
please help me make it more productive than negative.
I agree with Zhao Zhili:
> I don’t stay long enough to know the history, but I don’t think delving into
> history
> helps the current situation. Let's talk less abou
wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> > Marth64
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 6:15 PM
> > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches > de...@ffmpeg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Marth64
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 6:15 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> Hi Soft Works,
>
>
Hi Soft Works,
> What do you mean by "colorful language"?
> And "mockery" - you mean the pseudo code? What's wrong about that? I could
> have said the same in many words as well.
Words are fine and passionate opinions are fine. The pseudocode and
"shit-storming" comment came off the wrong way, th
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Marth64
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 5:59 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> Hello,
>
> Re: Soft Wor
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Marth64
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 5:59 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> Hello,
>
> Re: Soft Wor
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> compn
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 5:13 PM
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> michael is not a supervillain. saying its "michael vs the
> com
Hello,
Re: Soft Works
Let's not mock people please. You are entitled to your opinion but we
can leave the colorful language and mockery out.
Not saying you are the first and only one, I am aware this is a
chronic habit for the community email threads at large, but I ask
yourself and everyone for h
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Vittorio Giovara
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 5:24 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> On Wed, Jan 29,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 4:24 PM Soft Works <
softworkz-at-hotmail@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> > You are skewing the discuscussion and attacking me while constructing
> > a
> > conspiracy theory that is not true (I don't want to gain any control
> > at
> > all, I want a community-decided process for m
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 5:12 PM compn wrote:
> we can see how badly something ran by GA vote works right now. with our
> own eyes. ffmpeg just had a vote for the CC and two developers
> immediately quit working in the CC. why did we just waste all that
> time with a vote then?
>
I respect the fa
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:16:29 +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> 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). Michael is under the impression that
> the
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Vittorio Giovara
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 3:39 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> On Wed, Jan 29,
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:39:36 +0100 Nicolas George wrote:
> Zhao Zhili (12025-01-29):
> > I don’t stay long enough to know the history, but I don’t think delving
> > into history
> > helps the current situation. Let's talk less about history and hatred to
> > avoid creating
> > a self-fulfilling
devel On Behalf Of
> > > > Vittorio Giovara
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:45 AM
> > > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches > > > de...@ffmpeg.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
> > > >
&
Zhao Zhili (12025-01-29):
> I don’t stay long enough to know the history, but I don’t think delving into
> history
> helps the current situation. Let's talk less about history and hatred to
> avoid creating
> a self-fulfilling prophecy.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat
tmail@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> > > Vittorio Giovara
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:45 AM
> > > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches >
development discussions and patches > de...@ffmpeg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM Michael Niedermayer
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > About people pointing to me as the cause of something they do.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Vittorio Giovara
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:45 AM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> On Tue, Jan
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 7:21 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> About people pointing to me as the cause of something they do.
> Given iam in this project for over 20 years and iam the main author and
> we had a fork long ago. With many people joining back together. There are
> people who have had p
> On Jan 29, 2025, at 02:21, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> Hi Marth64
>
> while this wasnt a reply to me, some comments from me
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 04:01:17PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> That is what I am imagining when I mean have a meeting, suggesting
>> that maybe we shoul
Hi Marth64
while this wasnt a reply to me, some comments from me
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 04:01:17PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That is what I am imagining when I mean have a meeting, suggesting
> that maybe we should try a different communication medium that can be
> facilitated more rapidl
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 10:24 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> Hi Kieran
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 07:39:38PM +, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
> wrote:
> > > I remember such a IRC session before the libav fork.
> > > It is very similar to this here
> > > 4+ people, who simply accuse me of e
Hi,
That is what I am imagining when I mean have a meeting, suggesting
that maybe we should try a different communication medium that can be
facilitated more rapidly.
I was thinking an IRC meeting would be more beneficial than email
because email is hard to moderate.
In IRC, there are more easily
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 9:24 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
>
> Hi Kieran
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 07:39:38PM +, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
> wrote:
> > > I remember such a IRC session before the libav fork.
> > > It is very similar to this here
> > > 4+ people, who simply accuse me of
Hi Kieran
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 07:39:38PM +, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> > I remember such a IRC session before the libav fork.
> > It is very similar to this here
> > 4+ people, who simply accuse me of everything (on IRC though)
> > this serves no purpose. There is no common gr
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 8:51 PM Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 8:40 PM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >
> > With my CC hat on,
> >
> > Le sunnuntaina 26. tammikuuta 2025, 21.39.38 UTC+2 Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-
> > devel a écrit :
> > > With Anton leaving the project because of y
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 8:40 PM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>
> With my CC hat on,
>
> Le sunnuntaina 26. tammikuuta 2025, 21.39.38 UTC+2 Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-
> devel a écrit :
> > With Anton leaving the project because of you, Paul forking and James
> > leaving the CC because of your behaviou
With my CC hat on,
Le sunnuntaina 26. tammikuuta 2025, 21.39.38 UTC+2 Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-
devel a écrit :
> With Anton leaving the project because of you, Paul forking and James
> leaving the CC because of your behaviour of banning and censoring,
Kieran, there is a fine line between citing
> I remember such a IRC session before the libav fork.
> It is very similar to this here
> 4+ people, who simply accuse me of everything (on IRC though)
> this serves no purpose. There is no common ground here
Hi Michael,
With Anton leaving the project because of you, Paul forking and James
leavi
Hi Marth64
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 11:34:37AM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> > I believe discusion about ffmpeg should be public and on the mailing list
> > where everyone can participate
> It should be public and people should participate. It can also be
> real-time and on IRC.
> Clearl
Hi Gyan,
> Will the activity of these meetings be recorded and available publicly?
If we have a meeting, I would expect it to be recorded and available
publicly just like here:
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/FFmeeting/2020-12
Looks like the process was established before :)
_
On 2025-01-26 11:37 pm, Marth64 wrote:
I am only trying to be a voice of reason.
Please consider if we can have a community IRC meeting or in some other fashion
discuss a framework improvement in a safe space.
I would be happy to put together an agenda.
Will the activity of these meetings b
I am only trying to be a voice of reason.
Please consider if we can have a community IRC meeting or in some other fashion
discuss a framework improvement in a safe space.
I would be happy to put together an agenda.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-de
Hi Michael,
> I believe discusion about ffmpeg should be public and on the mailing list
> where everyone can participate
It should be public and people should participate. It can also be
real-time and on IRC.
Clearly this was done in the past.
Literally on the front page of TRAC, there is a secti
Le sunnuntaina 26. tammikuuta 2025, 17.06.28 UTC+2 Michael Niedermayer a écrit
:
> I believe discusion about ffmpeg should be public and on the mailing list
> where everyone can participate
> Also as you say "without interpersonal arguments" I see no reason
> for it not to be on the public mailing
> If the CC takes a clear action, this whole drama simply stops. Otherwise
> i suspect it will lead to a fork eventually. In the fork case they will leave
> with
> several others. I think thats a much bigger loss
I agree, Anton is gone because of your inflammatory behaviour
(banning, censorship e
Hi Marth64
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 04:40:00PM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> Complaint acknowledged. In the spirit of moving forward and de-escalating:
>
> Would you be open to a scheduled IRC meeting where we can talk through
> some of the project issues in real time?
> Ideally it i
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025, 21:49 Rémi Denis-Courmont, wrote:
> Le lauantaina 25. tammikuuta 2025, 22.26.44 UTC+2 Michael Niedermayer a
> écrit
> :
> > I had posted one joke on my personal twitter that i deleted a few hours
> > later as people seem to have misunderstood it.
>
> It is completely irreleva
Hello Michael,
Complaint acknowledged. In the spirit of moving forward and de-escalating:
Would you be open to a scheduled IRC meeting where we can talk through
some of the project issues in real time?
Ideally it is moderated by a neutral party to keep it civil and to the
point of project problem
Hello,
I would like to call for this thread to dissolve, it's getting ugly.
It's become a swirl of different grievances and the tone is toxic all around.
What is this good for besides draining away energy?
The thread's original scope has been outgrown.
We have some unresolved issues, sure.
Can w
Le lauantaina 25. tammikuuta 2025, 22.26.44 UTC+2 Michael Niedermayer a écrit
:
> I had posted one joke on my personal twitter that i deleted a few hours
> later as people seem to have misunderstood it.
It is completely irrelevant whether you intended it as a joke or not. How
would you react if
Le lauantaina 25. tammikuuta 2025, 22.26.44 UTC+2 Michael Niedermayer a écrit
:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 09:36:50PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> I have not complained about "FFmpeg community members attending conferences
> and discussing FFmpeg". Your statement suggests i did that, which i
Hi CC
please see my complaints inline below
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 09:36:50PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le tiistaina 21. tammikuuta 2025, 2.36.47 UTC+2 Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > Hi
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:38:17AM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> > > All this time
Hi Soft Works
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 06:52:27AM +, Soft Works wrote:
[...]
> > We need plugins
> > please lobby for a plugin architecture
>
> I'd love to see an extensibility model, I have one or two things for which
> there's clearly no place in the ffmpeg codebase.
> But this can't be a r
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 8:37 PM Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le tiistaina 21. tammikuuta 2025, 2.36.47 UTC+2 Michael Niedermayer a
> écrit :
> > Hi
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:38:17AM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> > > All this time people send back and forth emails attacking each othe
Le 24 janvier 2025 23:02:05 GMT+02:00, Nicolas George a écrit
:
>Rémi Denis-Courmont (12025-01-24):
>> For the record, those are just suggestions for future reference, not
>> personal
>> attacks.
>
>Rule of thumb: messages that needs to clarify they are not personal
>attacks are personal atta
Rémi Denis-Courmont (12025-01-24):
> For the record, those are just suggestions for future reference, not personal
> attacks.
Rule of thumb: messages that needs to clarify they are not personal
attacks are personal attacks.
--
Nicolas George
___
ffm
Le maanantaina 20. tammikuuta 2025, 20.14.41 UTC+2 Gyan Doshi a écrit :
> On 2025-01-20 11:14 pm, Soft Works wrote:
> > - An indication that the aim and direction of the contribution is
> >
> >generally acceptable
>
> This the crux of the matter. There appear to be two camps at odds with
> on
Hello,
Le tiistaina 21. tammikuuta 2025, 2.36.47 UTC+2 Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:38:17AM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> > All this time people send back and forth emails attacking each other or
> > the
> > project could have spent toward investing in modern DevOps
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 9:51 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> Michael Niedermayer (12025-
Michael Niedermayer (12025-01-21):
> You have worded this well
Thanks (assuming you are not saying it to the “+1”).
> Id like to add that this matches my understanding of what maintainers should
> be. (actual "leaders" in their areas)
>
> As side effect this would make things more scaleable too.
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Michael Niedermayer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2025 1:41 AM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> Hi Gyan
>
> O
Hi Michael,
> I do think the CC is a problematic entity in a community where there are
> complex friendships and hatred. And then the members of this CC come from this
> small group and mainly judge members of this same group
I am not from this group. I volunteered for the role to help the cultur
..@ffmpeg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
> >
> > Marth64 (12025-01-20):
> > > There are people who have specialty areas.
> > > They are the de facto leaders of their domains.
> >
> > They are *potential* leaders. To be actual
Hi Gyan
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:44:41PM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote:
>
>
> On 2025-01-20 11:14 pm, Soft Works wrote:
> > - An indication that the aim and direction of the contribution is
> >generally acceptable
>
> This the crux of the matter. There appear to be two camps at odds with one
>
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 10:38:17AM -0600, Marth64 wrote:
> All this time people send back and forth emails attacking each other or the
> project could have spent toward investing in modern DevOps infrastructure
> or discussing other advancements.
>
> It’s energy-draining to both read and write
Hi Nicolas (+),
> Let us add that the camp that wants more stability than originality
> already tried to become the dominant camp in the last years of the 2000s
> decade, with the same strategy of bullying Michael.
Just to reaffirm,
I have no such intention and am not in this camp.
Folks have bee
Hi Nicolas,
Re: Tooling
I am suggesting that there can be a middle ground somewhere.
I am not fond of modern heavy web GUIs myself and fully understand
that more senior developers have advanced needs.
The custom tooling I am referring to is Patchwork.
A neat tool, but is this not also a web GUI?
Gyan Doshi (12025-01-20):
> This the crux of the matter. There appear to be two camps at odds with one
> another:
>
> 1) a conservative camp which wants to avoid features or changes which don't
> neatly fit within a conventional pure architecture with clear separation of
> roles and duties, or fea
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 9:50 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> Marth64 (12025-01-20):
&g
Marth64 (12025-01-20):
> Who wants to spend the time to decipher say, 30 commits as individual
> emails or learn custom software to do this, just to review PRs?
What custom software? The point is precisely that anybody is free to use
the software of their choosing.
>
Marth64 (12025-01-20):
> There are people who have specialty areas.
> They are the de facto leaders of their domains.
They are *potential* leaders. To be actual leaders, they would need to
act as such, and the members of the project would need to respect them
as much.
> There is also a Technical
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Marth64
> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 7:19 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> And I still blame our infrastructure
Hi, Nicolas George:
> No, we do not.
I disagree.
There are people who have specialty areas.
They are the de facto leaders of their domains.
If you gave me constructive feedback on a patch in your domain, I’d look at
you as a technical thought leader in the space.
There is also a Technical Commi
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
