[FFmpeg-devel] root access voting

[Anton Khirnov]

Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-11-06 00:55:59)
> This community has just a few months ago managed to loose the 2nd largest
> contributor to a fork.
> 
> Instead of making "getting him back" a major talking point of the meeting.

If you care so much about getting Paul back, why are YOU not organizing
the effort instead of repeatedly complaining that
* other developers choose to meet and discuss things THEY find important
* you hate meetings and would prefer them to not happen at all

Not to mention little facts such as
* no one here seems to be able to have a constructive interaction with
  Paul on any topic, he refuses even to explain clearly why he made his
  fork
* you cannot expect a community of tens of people to make it their top
  priority to bend over backwards to accommodate one person

> And having an all inclusive meeting, there is no remote participation, no
> recording, Even the developer with the most commits in FFmpeg has no option
> to participate.

You DO have an option to participate, you just choose not to use it.
Besides, people have tried for many years to accommodate you, to the
point of offering to hold a meeting in your city so you would not have
to travel. Yet you are dismissive of meetings, keep saying how you'd
prefer they did not happen, and never show appreciation for such
efforts, so it should not surprise you that people stop trying.

> Theres a "show of hands" that i belive should not have occured, not without
> discussing with the people it was about.

Don't you find it the least bit hypocritical how you champion free
speech only until it's inconvenient for you? People are free to meet and
discuss whatever they like and they do not need your permission for it.

> I hope there is noone who belives one can remove a persons admin powers for
> no reason, put oneself in power instead and have that person still be
> a volunteer working in that project afterwards.
> 
> ronald, you are someone knowing about buisness, I think you know this. If a CEO is or other
> executive is voted out against his will.

Do you see yourself as the CEO here? Why?

You publicly resigned as this project's leader 9 years ago. Yet after
all this time you treat it as a matter of course that you and only you
can unilaterally decide who is trustworthy enough to be root, get git
push, or any other infrastructure access.

Furthermore you object to this being discussed, deny the issue even
exists, and in at least one case you wanted to ban someone for raising
it. Those are all tactics authoritarian governments use to suppress
opposition.

> What we need is a open dialoge, a calm discussion about what the underlaying
> issues are (if there are any). And to work towards correcting them.

How can we have a discussion that includes you when you refuse to
acknowledge there is something to discuss?

-- 
Anton Khirnov