[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg governance and accusations

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

For teh record, here is a sample of an exchange from yesterday
Iam posting this to show how the new CC is doing
And id like to use this to say that i will disregard all similar future mails
from this CC. Which is what multiple people have recommanded me to do both
from within FFmpeg and from outside FFmpeg.
My time and my life is more valuable than this.
If the CC ends up making "judgments" based on such accusations that have
no evidence or even contradict evidence if one would look for evidence,
thats up on the CC, not me.

This is my reply to the CC, with their accusations in context, as you can see its:
false accusations, accusations without evidence

    > >> What you've been doing is effectively throwing an ultimatum at the ML and GA everytime: "come up with a good idea within a few days or else I'm doing whatever the hell I want".
    > >
    > >In one case due to the deadline it was tight. We did run a vote in that case
    > >
    > >otherwise, please provide specific examples with links
    >
    > This request is ridiculous.

    If you have no evidence there is nothing to discuss.


    [...]

    > >The vote result supported to submit a proposal, so makeing a best effort to
    > >fill in something seemed in line with what was wanted by people
    >
    > This is pure 100% BS. There were neither vote announcements, nor ballot and nor vote results.

    Thats not true, and I raise this issue (making the claim that there are missing) with this mail to the CC here!

    The thread proposing and announcing the vote:
    https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-February/320604.html

    The results including ballots:
    https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-February/321245.html


And heres the reply i got on that:

    >> >> What you've been doing is effectively throwing an ultimatum at the ML and GA everytime: "come up with a good idea within a few days or else I'm doing whatever the hell I want".
    >> >
    >> >In one case due to the deadline it was tight. We did run a vote in that case
    >> >
    >> >otherwise, please provide specific examples with links
    >>
    >> This request is ridiculous.
    >
    >If you have no evidence there is nothing to discuss.

    As you know, and as I already mentioned, there is plenty of evidence in the ML archives.

    I don't have to justify myself here. That's not how this works. You're the one accused here, not me, and you've failed to disprove the accusations.

    You lost the argument. End of story.


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

Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good.
Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart
than the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better.
-------------- 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/20241230/2070353a/attachment.sig>