[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] FFmpeg leader

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 05:44:49AM -0700, Jason Garrett-Glaser wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 03:29:16PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Baptiste Coudurier
> >> <baptiste.coudurier at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> I believe we agree that maintainers are free to apply patches on the
> >> >> files they maintain, but in general there should be some exceptions to
> >> >> this rule. Such exceptions may arise when:
> >> >>
> >> >> * the change affects the policy or the style of the project
> >> >> * the change is no trivial, so it may benefit from peer-review
> >> >> * the change affects other code not maintained by the committer *or*
> >> >> ? the public interface
> >> >
> >> > Please let's be reasonable. We are all here for fun (for now at least).
> >> > Given the man power available, given the work, we cannot reasonably
> >> > enforce strict rules like you would do in projects like the kernel,
> >> > where day jobs and money are involved, let's face it.
> >>
> >> This rule, or guideline rather, ensures code quality, and fairness. I
> >> don't see how sending patches to the mailing list first would be any
> >> less fun... it tells the community "I care what you think, and I care
> >> about the quality of this code'.
> >>
> >> Also, you are assuming (for some strange reason) that everybody that
> >> works in the kernel is doing so because they are getting paid; I think
> >> you are completely wrong. People contribute to linux mainly because
> >> it's fun, and challenging, and it matters. Some people coincidentally
> >> do get paid, but they anyway keep contributing on their own free time,
> >> abiding by the same rules. And the majority of people are not paid in
> >> any way:
> >>
> >> http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/
> >>
> >> And what about projects like git? Or vlc? The developers surely don't
> >> get paid for contributing, and still send each and every patch (or
> >> mostly).
> >>
> >> It should be fun for you to receive constructive criticism from your
> >> peers, which in the case of FFmpeg, constitutes very highly skilled     t
> >> individuals, perhaps the best in the world in multimedia, I don't see
> >> how you would find it more exciting to pass the opportunity of getting
> >> such valuable feedback.
> >
> > then you live in a cave and havnt looked out in the last years
> > what is reality is that people fork ffmpeg right and left because they
> > are increasingly unwilling to put up with the bikeshed reviews
> 
> So in other words:
> 
> a) You are going to ignore the review process because you don't like it.

Ive repeated it many times.
I do not ignore the review process or rules. And if you think i do please
point me to where i have, dont just repeat vague accusations.

Some people have ignored the review process, namely alex converse (aac)
you (h264), mans (1st->3rd person, removial of docs, #inlcudes stdlib)
but then its funny that these people except alex are exactly who
accuse me to ignore the rules ...

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out
of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford
settlements. -- The RIAA
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20101002/e8326a88/attachment.pgp>