[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] drop support for using libav* compiled with mingw/cygwin in msvc

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 7:17 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:35:18PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>  > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:45:19PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>  > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:28:48AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>  > > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:27:42AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>  > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:29:15PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>  > > > > > Diego Biurrun <diego at biurrun.de> writes:
>  > > > > >
>  > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 01:59:45PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>  > > > > > >> [...]
>  > > > > > >
>  > > > > > > Can we please have a bit more discussion before resorting to votes the
>  > > > > > > next time around?
>  > > > >
>  > > > > Yes, sorry. This is the kind of thing that happens without a formal voting
>  > > > > procedure ...
>  > > >
>  > > > No.  You simply called for a vote without allowing for previous
>  > > > discussion.
>  > >
>  > > A proper formal "voting procedure" would require some discussion period
>  > > before people write proposed solutions about which people then can vote
>  > > using some condorcet method ...
>  >
>  > I very much fear even more formal procedures around here...
>
>  I meant something like:
>  * Any ffmpeg developer can start a vote by posting a mail to ffmpeg-dev with
>   [VOTE] in the subject. After such a mail the discussion period starts.
>  * During the discussion period ffmpeg developers can discuss the subject and
>   propose solutions. The discussion period ends when no new solutions are
>   proposed for 7 days. After it ends the actual vote starts
>  * During the actual vote ffmpeg developers can vote by replying to the
>   mail on ffmpeg-dev and ranking the proposed solutions. Anyone can change
>   their vote during the vote period. The Vote period ends after no new votes
>   are received fo 7 days.
>  * If there is a condorcet winner (a solution which wins against all others in
>   pairwise comparission), it is the winner of the vote. If there is no
>   condorcet winner then no consensus has been reached and the vote is invalid.
>
>  Above would avoid the problem you pointed at.

Michael, this is a trap and you felt in it.
We don't need formal procedures.

The requirement for vote is just asking everybody to explicitly
express their position.