[FFmpeg-devel] VDD 2023, FFmpeg meeting notes, (23-11-2023, 4pm, Dublin)

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 03:21:49PM +0200, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 6:45 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
> wrote:
> 
> > I disagree
> > * Who is and is not a member of the GA is in flux, there can be disputes
> >   even on GA membership.
> > * You cannot have something owned by a group like that. There needs to be
> >   an individual like a treassurer who has the actual key.
> >   So you again trust one person, this is not different from what it is
> >   now.
> >
> > Also democracies can make really bad decissions. Which iam sure you have
> > never seen occur ;)
> >
> > And last but not least, this is attackable even unintentionally
> > you just need for a single moment a majority in the GA that is
> > bad. This is not hard to reach, a group can easily pose as enough
> > active developers to achieve 51% and if the domain then really is
> > legally controlled by the GA. yeah goodby domain
> > this is not a scenario possible with fabrice having theretical veto
> > power.
> > So Yes, i strongly favor fabrice keeping this veto power.
> >
> 
> Yes, these are good points / concerns, and I share most of this. (I think
> it's important to state this explicitly.)

you say you agree, but then you continue talking in disagreement


> So, the question is: do you think
> we can find a middle ground here where you and I (and other GA members,
> obviously) might agree on what legal entity could be the holder of this
> "certificate of ownership"? And do you think it would make sense that in
> practice, one person elected by (for example) the TC or GA actually
> practically "has" that key, in the role of executing the "will of the
> assembly" (similar to treasurer, indeed)? I think we're essentially trying
> to define a democratic governance model here. Or do you explicitly think
> that Fabrice owning it is the only good way forward? (More like a
> benevolent king model.)

What we have currently is not a king making decissions.
What we have currently is the founder having a final (very difficult to use)
veto power to prevent something catastrophic

Also
What we have currently is not some random entity being in control of the
zonefile.
What we have is the zonefile on our server. Where our admins make changes
to it as our developers ask for. We did not had a dispute but if we had one
the TC and GA would decide what happens with the zonefile.

I think polling the developers if they want this power is not asking
the right question, because they have as much power already, as possible.

I think its better to keep fabrice as the one who has this final veto power
We have no dispute but if we imagine we had one.

I trust fabrice to act in the best interrests of the community. That is to
enact the democratic choice.

I do not trust a complex government structure to act in the best interrests
of the community and act within what the majority wants or whats best for the
majority.

Complex governance structures fail in complex ways, legal structures need
people willing to go to court even if not doing so would be better for them
in every form.

We see corruption and abuse of power in almost every government around the
world. I do not think we should move to such a system and expect different.

Also setting up such a legal entity and governance structure around the
domain will cost money and time, there are setup costs, there are yearly
costs. Also the people in the structure will want to be paid, maybe
you find a person doing it for free today but eventually teh set of
candidates who want to manage access to the "domain keys" for free
will be down to increasingly corrupt people. It may even be someone
like a bot net admin if you are unlucky enough.
And if you actually elected such a person as "treassurer" once your
not getting the domain back not with all your legal structurers in place

So again, fabrice is IMO the choice that is safe, simple and proofen

Fabrice has nothing to gain from (ab)using this power. Everyone
else who wants to guard  the final veto power for free probably has
something to gain from it.

Thanks

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

I have often repented speaking, but never of holding my tongue.
-- Xenocrates
-------------- 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/20230927/78f0f287/attachment.sig>