[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] STF 2025

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:09 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:09 AM Vittorio Giovara <
> vittorio.giovara at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:53 AM Vittorio Giovara <
> > > vittorio.giovara at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 3:01 AM Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel <
> > > > ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Reposting my question/comment here since Thilo hasn't had a
> chance
> > to
> > > > > > respond, but shouldn't these kinds of requests go through the GA?
> > If
> > > > > > anybody can do whatever they want with the ffmpeg name, then
> what's
> > > the
> > > > > > point of voting and following the established process?
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably? I'm not actually sure what the process is for getting an
> > > FFmpeg
> > > > > booth at a conference. Is there a documented process somewhere for
> > how
> > > > this
> > > > > should be done? If not this might be a good opportunity to create
> > one.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Agreed, do you have a draft you could share as a base of discussion?
> > Once
> > > > defined, we could have the GA vote on it
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It might also make for a good topic of discussion at VDD. For how
> > much
> > > > > drama there was about NAB on the list I was surprised there was
> zero
> > > > > discussion about it at FOSDEM.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > There were probably more important topics to discuss and the
> lingering
> > > hope
> > > > that the problematic points would have been handled better than by
> > > calling
> > > > people trolls
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing
> > sponsorship
> > > > for
> > > > > NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to
> live
> > > in
> > > > > Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm
> > happy
> > > > to
> > > > > help at NAB next year as well should it happen again.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth"
> > > >
> > > > I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg
> booth
> > at
> > > > > IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was
> > > > > cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't think anybody is suggesting that booths are cost-problematic,
> > but
> > > > rather they are lacking in process (one shouldn't allowed use ffmpeg
> > name
> > > > "just because") and in scope (aka "the why" and what kind of results
> > are
> > > > expected by investing time in said booth)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Said by prominent LibAV developer.
> > >
> >
> > reported to CC :)
> >
>
> CC is fully controlled by prominent LibAV developers.
>

Not only is this factually incorrect, it's also unrelated to the topic at
hand. No worries, this infringement is being reported to the CC as well,
but please try to make an effort at doing better at least.
Thank you
-- 
Vittorio