[FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCE] upcoming vote: extra members for GA

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 08:15:33PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-11-09 19:50:16)
> > > 
> > > > these are lists with roughly 50 entries, now we _know_ 2 people differ
> > > 
> > > We don't. You only mention one, whom I adress above. Who is the second?
> > 
> > Alexander Strasser
> 
> It seems clear that none of the three extra GA members were on the list
> used now. In my opinion that is correct, as their voting rights expired
> a year ago.
> 
> > > 
> > > > but there where 3 on the extra voters list so really 4 differ almost certainly
> > > 
> > > I do not understand this math.
> > 
> > There where 3 extra developer voted onto the GA and there is zane.
> > that makes 4
> > there is also Gautam Ramakrishnan on the posted list who simply did not
> > have 20 commits at the time of the votes in 2020
> > thats 5.
> > 
> > You cannot explain this away.
> > Also Thilo mentioned that the number of voters was 49 without the 3 extra members
> > in the results while the list jb posted had 51
> > 
> > These things really dont match no matter how you turn it
> > 
> > And again thats why iam asking questions.
> 
> The problem is, there is nothing meaningful you can do with the answers.
> Yes, mistakes were made in 2020. The rules were not defined clearly
> enough. The process for generating the list was not formalized. The
> lists themselves were not preserved unambiguously, apparently.
> 
> Now all that is being rectified. The rules have been clarified. The list
> of voters has been published for the last vote, and the intent is to
> publish it for all future votes. I intend to update the script after the
> next vote, so that the extra GA members are in there and it generates
> the actually correct result.

for all i can tell all the votes in 2020 used consistantly the same list
(which may or may not be the correct list)
first without the extra members and then with teh 3 extra members.
exactly how one would expect.
and there where test votes prior to ensure everything worked

the problem was not 2020 (from what i can know/see ATM, the problem began in
2023 First the vote just started unexpectedly with no prior test, no
announcement. People didnt receive the mails, the options where not
discussed. The vote had to be repeated, you wrote the announcemnt
we added an option we fixed some issues in the options we tested
the infrastructure and then the vote started to my surprise not by
you and with a different list of voters.

If the rules are ambigous and one dont know who should be on the vote
list. One would post a "[RFC] Vote rules are ambigous" or
"[RFC] I lost the original list of voters from 2020" and find a
consensus first. Make sure things are transparent and everyone
understands whats going on.
None of this happened. Instead the information only slowly and after
alot of questions and increasing inconsitances where found, came out.
Fixing the rules, does not fix the lack of transparency.

What i suggest is that in the future the vote superviser is not one person
who can be overworked, stressed and forget things,
but at least 2 who work together and who must agree on every step before
doing it. The 2 people can be one member of the TC and one member of the CC
and for each vote a different pair would be selected. (with 5 members in each
committee there are 25 combinations minus anyone who doesnt volunteer and also
any pair who are friends (or the same person) should be excluded)

That is for the official votes like GA/TC/CC votes
Anyone can of course still start their own vote

Above mail is just a suggestion, if people want to keep the current
system. Iam not opposed. I was just thinking about what the alternatives
are and because few people i think have broad support and trust picking
a always changing pair seemed a interresting option to propose.
Now please flame me to death for suggesting this!
I need to look into releases (which i almost certainly wont be able to finish today)

Also the question about the vote supervisor was raised before in 2020 by paul

0702 12:58 Paul B Mahol    (1,6K) [FFmpeg-devel] RfP Candidates
        Why and how you are picked to do this stuff?
        Can't we vote for someone else?

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know
nothing. -- Socrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20231109/d3c72ae9/attachment.sig>