[FFmpeg-devel] Democratization

[Nicolas George]

Niklas Haas (12025-01-29):
> As I pointed out in the past, I am implicitly assuming that Timo, Fabrice, and
> other current holders of admin rights would go along with whatever Michael
> decides, so that makes Michael alone the only person who is blocking the will of
> the CC (and by extension, the GA).
> 
> If you have reason to believe otherwise, then indeed the situation is more
> complicated. And then we may have a third faction consisting of some subset of
> (Michael, Timo, Fabrice, and possibly other people we were not made aware of).

They agree with Michael, therefore we do not count them and say Michael
is alone. That is not just biassed, that is completely dishonest. 

> The CC was elected by a majority of the GA, so for all intents and purposes,
> the CC is the closest representation of the majority opinion as we are
> likely to ever have.

Indeed. And if you know anything about social choice theory, it is that
this “closest” is very far indeed. The reality is that there is no such
thing as a collective opinion.

> Yes, obviously. That is exactly why I think that another fork is a likely
> outcome at this point in time.

Then the only viable strategy is to make sure the people who fork are
the harmful ones.

> This is a fallacious argument. From the point of view of the anti-Michael
> faction, it is Michael's presence that is hurting the project the most. So you
> could say the exact same thing about Michael's actions, with the same
> circular justification.

Once again: learn from history. The forkers drove their fork into the
ground, Michael made the original branch strive.

> This seems like a direct contradiction of reality. Michael has repeatedly
> made it clear that the community should *not* be in charge.

Michael, literally one hour ago: “Allow every contributor to have a
vote, ensuring all voices are heard, regardless of their role or level
of involvement.”

>								It also goes
> against what we established above, which is that people are leaving the
> project precisely because it is *not* democratically run.

This too is false, we established no such thing.

-- 
  Nicolas George