[FFmpeg-devel] Democratization

[Nicolas George]

Gyan Doshi (12025-01-20):
> This the crux of the matter. There appear to be two camps at odds with one
> another:
> 
> 1) a conservative camp which wants to avoid features or changes which don't
> neatly fit within a conventional pure architecture with clear separation of
> roles and duties, or features which are of use only to some users
> 
> and,
> 
> 2) a broadband camp which accepts features which are niche or which require
> some hybrid accommodation in its implementation.

This is a good point, and I agree with your analysis.

> For most of ffmpeg history, the latter has been the dominant camp. But not
> in recent history.

Let us add that the camp that wants more stability than originality
already tried to become the dominant camp in the last years of the 2000s
decade, with the same strategy of bullying Michael. They eventually had
to split into their own project, but it died.

> Tweaking the structures or procedures of governance can't ultimately bridge
> this chasm. It's almost like these camps should be part of different
> projects.

I agree with that too. Or at least different and separate branches of
the same project.

But an important point: the stable-without-originality branch needs to
be downstream of the creative branch.

It is the same as Debian: you do not make Debian unstable by adding
features to Debian stable, you make Debian stable by freezing and
polishing Debian unstable.

The libav fork failed in part because it tried to be the upstream (and
pretend it was alone). I would say it amounts to about half the reason
it failed, the other half being the personality of its de-facto leaders.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George