[FFmpeg-devel] [MPlayer-legal] [VOTE] New root crew for mphq and new projectleader for FFmpeg

[Luca Barbato]

On 10/03/2010 04:39 PM, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
> On 10/3/10, Michael Niedermayer<michaelni at gmx.at>  wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 03:22:54PM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>>> On 10/03/2010 03:00 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>>> yes, i agree.
>>>> Having the admins at the same time be core developers of the projects
>>>> they
>>>> manage is a bit a conflict of interrest and not ideal.
>>>> Like in the foundation treasurer, president and secretary should be
>>>> seperate
>>>> people and developers of the projects and the server admins too should be
>>>> seperate that is ideally.
>>>
>>> I think you are both overestimating the roles and I don't see where is
>>> the conflict of interest.
>>
>> mans is a developer of ffmpeg, jason is a developer of ffmpeg they had a
>> disagreement about something in ffmpeg and mans closed jasons account by
>> using
>> his root power.
>> thats not theory but reality
>
> r22914, on April 19 cvs-log.
> I had replied in that thread and tried to notify Attila right away.
> I'm still not sure if Mans really closed the account, as Jason
> committed irrelevant change after 2 hours, but even
> pretending/threatening to do so, is bad enough.

Author: mru
Date: Mon Apr 19 21:37:31 2010
New Revision: 22914

Log:
Revert "Fix libx264 configure check to use pkg-config if available."

This was done out of pure spite.  Commit rights revoked.

Modified:
    trunk/configure

Change of files maintained by other on purpose to annoy who maintains 
that. In other projects such commit might grant a suspension of 2 
months, not for the commit but for the spite...

>> mans said "I do not recognize you as a leader."
>> so based on what would he mange the git write accounts of the ffmpeg
>> project?
>
> r25286 , that's still on the first page in cvs-log, I guess you've seen it.

It is apparent that w/out that something would break if common.h isn't 
there. Discussion on that, could be derailed somewhere else. I didn't 
check if there is optional code already in this situation. Usually I 
prefer having the headers for the code used in a file present for clarity.

If we consider the two episodes either one is right or one is wrong. 
Considering both wrong behaviour is stretching it a bit.

>> i really think there cannot be a clearer conflict of interest

Nobody can prevent you from accepting or rejecting changes for your tree 
in git.

> He could have removed your account right away (for violation of rules).

Who?

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero