[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg table at NAB

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Hi,

Thilo is calling Kieran, myself and presumably Derek and JB trolls.

This seems to be a pattern against anyone who disagrees with him.

Le 22 avril 2024 04:25:20 GMT+08:00, Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org> a écrit :
>Hi,
>
>On 21.04.24 10:47, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have been dragged privately into this issue so for the sake of transparency, I will just sum up my side here.
>>
>>
>> Le 17 avril 2024 07:21:18 GMT+08:00, Devin Heitmueller <devin.heitmueller at ltnglobal.com> a écrit :
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I wasn't looking to start trouble, but I didn't see any discussion of
>>> this on the mailing list so wanted to bring it to the developer
>>> community's attention.
>>>
>>> I attended the NAB conference and went by the "ffmpeg" booth on
>>> Sunday.  What I found was a single table with the official ffmpeg
>>> banner hanging right next to a banner for the GPAC project, and two
>>> salespeople from GPAC handing out marketing literature and trying to
>>> educate me on why I should use their framework for my next project.
>>
>> Thilo did announce that some unidentified party would be payind for FFmpeg to hold a booth (this should be visible in the archives). Kieran raised legitimate if not concerning questions based on his prior experience at NAB.
>I announced that "We reiceived an anonymous corporate sponsorship for the booth, so there are no costs for the FFmpeg project to it (and no obligations, of course)."
>
>Kieran's reaction was raising concerns that he feels donors wouldn't want to see their SPI money spend on NAB [1][2] - ignoring that I'd just announced that there will be no donor's SPI money needed as there are no costs for FFmpeg.
>
>Kieran's reaction further was claiming that no plan has been provided who will actually be present on the booth [1][2] - ignoring that I'd just announced that "Any FFmpeg developer is welcome to join in and man the booth with me".
>
>
>> Thilo did not answer, which is inexcusable, especially considering that there were several times that the questions were reiterated.
>Ignoring what has been said, making statements raising the impression that something contradictory would be the truth is trolling me and deceiving the other readers. No reason at all to feed the trolls - no matter how often the trolling is repeated.
>
>
>> Thilo privately called Kieran a "troll" as the lame pretext for not answering the question (I can copy the CC privately if proof of this is needed).
>
>And I just did publicly, for what I believe his reaction in the FFmpeg at NAB 2024 thread was and everyone can read to get their own impression in the archives. You think it's a lame pretext? The "questions" had been answered even before they were "raised" by Kieran.
>
>
>> In light of this, it seemed obvious that the FFmpeg booth would be a disaster, pretty much how Kieran had predicted.
>
>In the light of... the costs being covered and me + any other volunteer manning the booth as announced or in the light of... the deceiving 'ignorance' in Kieran's statements?
>_Even if_ the coverage of the complete funding and/or manning the booth would have been unanswered, how would that have 'obviusly' concluded the booth to become a disaster?
>That conclusion itself appears not comprehensible.
>
>
>> So there you have it. On the bright side, FFmpeg was not footing the bill.
>
>I fear FFmpeg has to pay quite a high bill for all the trolling bullshit going on about this NAB presence alone.
>
>
>> I think everybody can make their own conclusions without me speculating or opiniating further, so I will leave it at that.
>
>I very much hope everyone is making up their own opinion.
>Even you, who I think is not stupid, obviously was too easily made to takeover the 'payment is unclear', 'manning is unclear', 'will become a desaster' narrative here.
>
>
>>> I'm not saying that GPAC shouldn't be able to have a table at the
>>> conference, but it feels pretty misleading to have an "ffmpeg" booth
>>> listed in the conference materials, with a table prominently
>>> displaying the ffmpeg logo, with zero people from ffmpeg and people
>>> pushing users to use an alternative framework that some might actually
>>> considered to be a competitor to ffmpeg.
>>
>> Agreed. Thanks for your testimony.
>And here you are demonstrating again that it appears to be so much beloved behavior in our community to hop on the troll train and willingly ignore previous statement for the sake to troll on.
>You love to ignore what I relied to Devin's mail where to the most important part, Devin's impression could be reasonably explained/voided to have been a wrong impression (misleading ffmpeg booth without any people from ffmpeg) that to my understanding after talking to him, doesn't bother him anymore.
>
>You can think about GPAC what you want and if it is a good idea to share a booth with them.
>My thoughts about it is that we should absorb them into FFmpeg instead of splitting resources and efforts. They know that and yet want to share a booth with us.
>But since they are doing things like DRM we reject doing at FFmpeg, GPAC currently is a valid downstream project adding 'value' of some kind to their users beyond what FFmpeg can provide.
>Not surprising, since we are a library and literally every user will add some value on top, make their own project/product out of it and could be considered a 'competitor' in that sense.
>
>IMHO, you just added quite some trollish behavior in your own response to the NAB discussion instead of productive, fruitful or even useful discussion, hurting FFmpeg and yourself.
>
>-Thilo
>
>
>[1] https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2023-November/317199.html
>[2] https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2023-November/317214.html
>
>_______________________________________________
>ffmpeg-devel mailing list
>ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
>https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
>To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
>ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".