[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] AG (GA?) VOTE

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 03:33:21PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 14:58:53)
> > On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 02:32:57PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-10-10 13:56:45)
> > > > Hi all
> > > > 
> > > > a vote on the General Assembly composition was apparently initiated with
> > > > a duration of 6 days, i saw this in my inbox:
> > > > "1009 23:49 Jean-Baptiste K (3,4K) Poll: FFmpeg AG members rules"
> > > > 
> > > > There was no real prior discussion on the mailing list about this.
> > > > There are 2 choices which are similar
> > > > (update the list before each vote and update it twice a year)
> > > > And a 3rd option that is probably not what the "opposition" wants I think
> > > > (use the 2020 version, never update)
> > > 
> > > "opposition"?
> > > Who is this opposition, who are they opposed to, and why the scare quotes?
> > > 
> > > > First its neccessary to give the community a chance to discuss the GA composition
> > > > choices, collect suggestions and then do a vote
> > > 
> > > The community did have the chance to discuss this. The point was raised
> > > at VDD over 2 weeks ago, at the developer meeting you participated in.
> > > You even commented on this specific point.
> > 
> > My health was somewhat bad on that day, theres no way i could have
> > within a minute from learning about this during the meeting thought
> > about what choices would make sense and suggest them.
> 
> I am not saying you have to come up with options on the spot, I'm saying
> you were aware of the intent to have a vote on this.
> 
> > > 
> > > Then a summary of the meeting (including the intent to have a vote on
> > > this) was sent to this mailing list. If there was no discussion then
> > > perhaps it was because nobody was interested in discussing it.
> > > 
> > > > Now iam quite unprepared to really suggest something as i also didnt think about this
> > > > much or expect this vote now but at least something like
> > > > * keep everyone who had vote rights but add active developers each jan/july
> > > > 
> > > > Is a more honest choice for the "opposition" than "never update"
> > > 
> > > Why did you not suggest this choice before? You had more than two weeks
> > > to do so.
> > 
> > Because it was said voting to happen after 6.1, So i thought there is
> > plenty of time as 6.1 is not even branched yet
> 
> I am not aware of anyone having said that. The main impetus for this

I had the impression the intent was to do the release first because the
discussions about the vote added (and the votes itself would more so)
cause delays to the release.
At least I ended up spending significant time in vote releated threads that
i did not spend on release & security related work.

I would have to reread tons on logs to find which exact statments gave me
that impression.


> vote is to unblock other votes we need to have. The foremost of them is
> electing new TC and CC, which is very long overdue at this point.
> That should be done before voting on SDR, which presumably you want to
> happen before 6.1

the SDR vote does not need to happen before 6.1
(its nice if it does but it does not have to)

thx

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

Awnsering whenever a program halts or runs forever is
On a turing machine, in general impossible (turings halting problem).
On any real computer, always possible as a real computer has a finite number
of states N, and will either halt in less than N cycles or never halt.
-------------- 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/20231010/f9825228/attachment.sig>