ons 2025-02-12 klockan 12:49 +0100 skrev Nicolas George:
> Tomas Härdin (HE12025-02-12):
> > This is aristocracy, not democracy.
>
> Why do you believe democracy would be a good model for a Libre
> Software
> project?
The title of the thread includes the word "democratization"..
Plenty of free s
Tomas Härdin (HE12025-02-12):
> This is aristocracy, not democracy.
Why do you believe democracy would be a good model for a Libre Software
project? Why do you believe the opinion of people should matter
irregardless of the quality and merit of their contribution to the
project?
(There is an obvi
ons 2025-01-29 klockan 21:33 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> Make Voting Power Proportional to Contributions
> Fair Representation: Allocate voting power based on
> contributions, ensuring that those who dedicate substantial time and
> effort to the project have a stronger voice than
Michael Niedermayer (12025-02-03):
> Lets assume we have 2 projects in one the vulnerability was taken advantage of
> while in the other it was not.
>
> How would you tell them apart ?
One of them would have a software-defined radio subsystem, the other
not.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
__
Hi
On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 03:14:58PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 2/1/2025 6:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi James
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:30:21AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
> , the text points this out in a mockin
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 7:08 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> Hi James
>
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 03:14:58PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > On 2/1/2025 6:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > Hi James
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:30:21AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > > On 1/31/2025 9:
Hi James
On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 03:14:58PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 2/1/2025 6:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi James
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:30:21AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > Hi James
> > > >
> > > > On Fri
Michael,
On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 4:53 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> The system is absurd, the text points this out in a mocking/ironic way.
> If you want me to reword this in a dry formal way, i can submit such a
> patch?
>
Every system is absurd. "If everyone just agreed with me, then ..." Th
On 2/1/2025 7:27 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi James
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:30:21AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
has worked. Changing it now because one person was unhappy with a CC (That
This is a false statement. Iam not sugge
On 2/1/2025 6:53 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi James
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:30:21AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi James
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:44:50PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
Niklas Ha
Hi
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 02:45:26PM +0800, Zhao Zhili wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 2025, at 08:49, Michael Niedermayer
> > wrote:
> >
> > Hi James
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:44:50PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> >> On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> >>> Niklas Haas (12025-01-
On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 3:26 AM Leo Izen wrote:
> While this isn't an entirely analogous situation, most contributors who
> are active have been active since they started contributing, so this
> doesn't do a whole lot except to pick out people who used to be active
> and then stopped and then star
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of Leo
> Izen
> Sent: Sunday, February 2, 2025 3:26 AM
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization work in progress draft v2
>
> On 1/31/25 11:01 AM, Soft Works wrote:
[..]
On 1/31/25 11:01 AM, Soft Works wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
James Almer
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 4:45 PM
To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization work in progress draft v2
Past involvement, including long-past
Hi Nicolas
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 09:44:50PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer (12025-01-29):
> > Hi all
> >
> > Heres my current "work in progress": (sending that before fosdem, so people
> > can discuss if they like)
>
> Counter-proposal:
>
> By any sane measure of merit to
Hi Michael,
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, 22:27 Michael Niedermayer,
wrote:
>
> Lets be carefull here with the words. But the awnser is "yes"
> Many developers have been paid to write commits. employees, contractors,
> students
>
As an FFlabs employee (which I believe is the biggest GA cohort) and
shareh
Hi James
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:30:21AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
> >
> >
> > > has worked. Changing it now because one person was unhappy with a CC (That
> >
> > This is a false statement. Iam not suggesting a change to the GA because
Hi James
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 10:30:21AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi James
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:44:50PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > > On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > > > Niklas Haas (12025-01-30):
> > [...
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Saturday, February 1, 2025 9:21 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches de...@ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
>
> Michael Niedermayer (12
Michael Niedermayer (12025-01-29):
> Hi all
>
> Heres my current "work in progress": (sending that before fosdem, so people
> can discuss if they like)
Counter-proposal:
By any sane measure of merit towards the project you would get more
votes than anybody else, that makes no sense. So, instead
Michael Niedermayer (12025-02-01):
> * The CC is fundamentally broken
The TC is even more fundamentally broken.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To uns
James Almer (12025-02-01):
> It does by definition.
A definition is not an argument by itself. A definition is a way for
people to speak the same language when they state their arguments.
Multiple people have said that we do not agree with that definition.
> >(both
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, 15:03 Michael Niedermayer,
wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 02:48:51PM +, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, 14:46 Michael Niedermayer,
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> >
I don't appreciate an inflammatory and accusatory email being sent
privately, so I'll answer publicly.
On 2/1/2025 12:26 PM, E-BLOKOS wrote:
How much VIMEO paid you or vittorio to break Michael's work and rights?
I don't work for Vimeo. I work for the same company currently employing
Michael
On 2/1/2025 11:46 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:51:27 +0100 Nicolas George wrote:
Niklas Haas (12025-01-29):
[...]
*Some members* of
what you call community have expressed violent opposition to Michael.
Hi
On Sat, Feb 01, 2025 at 02:48:51PM +, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, 14:46 Michael Niedermayer,
> wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:51:27 +0100 Nicolas George
> > wrote:
> > > > N
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, 14:46 Michael Niedermayer,
wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:51:27 +0100 Nicolas George
> wrote:
> > > Niklas Haas (12025-01-29):
> [...]
>
> > > *Some members* of
> > > what you call community have express
Hi
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:51:27 +0100 Nicolas George wrote:
> > Niklas Haas (12025-01-29):
[...]
> > *Some members* of
> > what you call community have expressed violent opposition to Michael.
> > But *other members* have expressed,
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 1, 2025, at 3:11 PM, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
>> On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, at 07:45, Zhao Zhili wrote:
>> The proposal treat every GA member as suspect, and GA members with
>> daily jobs guilty.
>>
>> The community should be based on trust and everyone s
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 1, 2025, at 2:21 PM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 1:45 AM Zhao Zhili <
>> quinkblack-at-foxmail@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>>
>> The proposal treat every GA member as suspect, and GA members with daily
>> jobs guilty.
>
>
> Thank you
Hi Niklas
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:27:58PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
[...]
> Michael is the current de-facto leader. It is literally impossible for me to
> phrase it in any other way that does not unduly single him out as long as this
> remains the status quo.
In 2015 and before, i worked from
Hello,
On Sat, 1 Feb 2025, at 07:45, Zhao Zhili wrote:
> The proposal treat every GA member as suspect, and GA members with
> daily jobs guilty.
>
> The community should be based on trust and everyone should be trust
> equally,
+1
> It’s dangerous to fix the vulnerability in the GA by make G
Hi
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 07:36:31PM +, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> 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 c
Hi Niklas
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 04:16:29PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
> 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'
On 1/31/2025 9:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi James
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:44:50PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
Niklas Haas (12025-01-30):
[...]
On the other hand, I believe this whole plan is a bad idea.
Yes, it is a bad idea. We have had
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 1:45 AM Zhao Zhili <
quinkblack-at-foxmail@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> The proposal treat every GA member as suspect, and GA members with daily
> jobs guilty.
Thank you for saying this. I couldn't agree more.
Ronald
___
ffmpeg
> On Feb 1, 2025, at 08:49, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> Hi James
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:44:50PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
>>> Niklas Haas (12025-01-30):
> [...]
>>> On the other hand, I believe this whole plan is a bad idea.
>> Yes, it
Hi James
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 12:44:50PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
> > Niklas Haas (12025-01-30):
[...]
> > On the other hand, I believe this whole plan is a bad idea.
> Yes, it is a bad idea. We have had the current system in place for about
> fiv
On 1/31/2025 11:58 AM, Nicolas George wrote:
Niklas Haas (12025-01-30):
This should be time-gated to count only commits in the recent, say, 3
years (to match the current GA cycle). Counting purely historical
commits seems odd.
On the other hand, we should give more weight to the opinion of peo
> -Original Message-
> From: ffmpeg-devel On Behalf Of
> James Almer
> Sent: Friday, January 31, 2025 4:45 PM
> To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization work in progress draft v2
>
> > Past involvement, including long-pa
Niklas Haas (12025-01-30):
> This should be time-gated to count only commits in the recent, say, 3
> years (to match the current GA cycle). Counting purely historical
> commits seems odd.
On the other hand, we should give more weight to the opinion of people
who have been around for many years and
Michael Niedermayer (12025-01-30):
> If instead of a hypothetical case, you use real cases
> like for example any successfull company (not just on the stock market
> but that too)
If we compare ffmpeg to a company (a dangerous comparison, as the goals
of FFmpeg are quite different, but let us roll
> -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 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
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
