[FFmpeg-devel] Democratization

[James Almer]

On 1/17/2025 2:39 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 03:40:42PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
>> On 1/14/2025 2:06 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> To come back to this, and iam not sure this is the best mail to reply
>>> to (i think there was a better one)
>>> but thres a glaring missconception, see below
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 02, 2025 at 04:38:07PM +0100, Niklas Haas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Jan 2025 15:17:31 +0100 Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>       People will have shares proportional to their contribution to FFmpeg.
>>>>
>>>> Just to nitpick the terminology a bit: This would no longer be a democracy,
>>>> but rather an oligarchy, since the vast majority of the voting shares would be
>>>> held in a very small handful of people on account of the exponential
>>>> distribution of commit count per contributor.
>>>
>>> The FFmpeg community are at least 2263 People, that are the people "living on"
>>> FFmpeg devel.
>>
>> Where did you get that number? Because i don't see that many contributors on
>> this list, or on IRC, or in the last several years of commit history.
> 
> on https://lists.ffmpeg.org/mailman/admin/ffmpeg-devel/members
> in the center of the page:
> "2267 members total, 1 shown"
> 
> 
>>
>>> The same way as the people living in a country, if you define democracy as
>>> "everyone" to have an equal vote right irrespective of contribution then
>>> it is at least all these people
>>>
>>> The 49 people in the current general assembly are not a democracy.
>>> They are maybe an aristrocracy, maybe a oligarchy maybe something else,
>>> but it is not a democracy, because its simply not all the people as in,
>>> demos being people.
>>
>> The GA is a list of currently active contributors, not of every person that
>> committed a patch in the last quarter of a century or sent an email to this
>> ml. It is them who, in a community managed project, should have the last
>> word to where the project should go. And how are differences solved? By a
>> democratic vote where the majority wins.
> 
> In the US only people who have paid their taxes, where emplooyed for 20 months
> in the last 3 years, didnt receive a speeding ticket, are married and not
> divorced go to church every sunday, have seperated the trash correctly.
> Excercise 2 times a week, pay their gym membership. have savings for their kids.
> eat at least 70% of their calories as plant based food and a variable list
> decided by thier city major and state governmnet, where your mask to not
> catch a virus, ...
> After they pass all that they are allowed to vote. That is called a democracy
> on top of that the general assembly of the US can also vote in their friends
> into the GA.

All this was unnecessary and adds nothing to your argument. It just 
shows you're displeased with the situation.

> and from that a community committee is elected yearly of 5 judges which behind
> closed doors and no record and no allowed defense, no trial, decides whatever
> it likes about whoever it liks. Also just this year the CC decided that its
> power will be expanded beyond interpersonal conflicts to control all finance
> of everyone.

This is not true, so why even say it? If you're talking about SPI/STF, 
the CC didn't intervene on any request or project approval. You are 
working in one said project, as is Niklas.

> 
> really ? thats a democracy ?

Yes, it's a democracy. People participate in it, vote, and a majority wins.
The problem is in the structure we came up with it, as you put it below.

> you want that ? (i mean if you are not "inside" as in if whatever party you
> like less, is in charge of this)
> 
> 
>>
>> You're being incredibly dismissive of the people who are keeping the project
>> alive by giving them labels like the above.
> 
> no, not the people. The people are FFmpeg, teh project would be nothing
> without the people.
> 
> Iam dismissive about the political structure we created.

You're displeased with the toothless CC that was replaced last month, 
and not with the overall structure itself. And I'm in part at fault for 
it not acting when it should have. I have said it before.
The new CC hasn't yet put to test, so at the very least lets do that.

Now, if all fails, you and anyone else can suggest a new structure. It 
could to be disband the CC and replace it with something else. It could 
be to clearly define that ML temporary bans and thread moderation can be 
handed by ML admins (With a modicum of common sense to choose when to 
act) while the CC deliberates on any relevant report. It could be to 
increase the amount of people in the committee. It could be anything we 
can agree on, and the way we agree on it is with a majority vote.

Similarly, you can suggest to increase, or decrease, the bar to enter 
the GA. I'd expect you asking for the latter, because i recall that you 
some time ago mentioned how said bar was in fact too low. But then even 
less people would make it in, which doesn't seem like something you'd 
like seeing how you insist the 2000+ ML subscriptors, even if they only 
lurk and never even talk, should be considered.

Also, it can also be made that certain votes require a special majority 
and not a simple 50% + 1. Anything, and everything, can be changed. The 
only thing that should remain a constant is to keep the project a 
community managed one.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20250117/d598f6bd/attachment.sig>