[FFmpeg-devel] Discussion about mails from 9 years ago Was: [PATCH 1/2] doc/community: Add a standard set of rules for software development mailing lists

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le 25 novembre 2024 23:09:41 GMT+02:00, compn <ff at hawaiiantel.net> a écrit :
>On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 20:15:58 +0200
>Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi at remlab.net> wrote:
>
>> Le sunnuntaina 24. marraskuuta 2024, 22.51.08 EET compn a écrit :
>> > a non-ff developer at vdd said i was "inactive for years".  
>> 
>> FWIW, while I do recall people criticising your answers in the FFmeg meeting, 
>> I don't recall any statement to the effect that _you_ were inactive.
>
>inactive message was not said at vdd, but in a private mail later on.
>inactive message is also unrelated to why i reported this person, since
>it was said in private.

Okay, so you were lying when you wrote "at VDD" in the quote right above or what? That sounds like a pretext for bad-mouthing the organisation.

>> > it makes me not want to visit vdd again.  
>> 
>> So just one attendee maybe said something wrong at a conference, and now 
>> you're blaming it on the organisers?
>
>you're not close to figuring out why i specifically blame the
>organizers.

Is this FUD or is this moving the goal post?

>i made a valid complaint to the board/organizers of vdd to something
>that happened at vdd.

So you claim, but without proof, you're just defaming the board of VideoLAN here.

Also you do realise that using email is not very practical and effective during a conference - as opposed to getting in touch with anyone of the present board members directly.

> i quoted from the shared values and code of
>conduct rules. and explained how the persons comments to me at vdd
>broke said rules and shared values.

Even if it's true (and your self contrafiction above makes you less credible), conference organisers can't police private discussions. Nothing very special about VDD, obviously.

He-said-she-said, innocent until proven guilty and all that.


>ffmpeg code of conduct page has an actual contact email, with
>responsive code of conduct members responding to complaints within a day
>or two. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I have had admissions from CC members that that's simply not true - several times even.