Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 22:51:20) > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:12:11PM +0000, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel > wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2024, at 12:41 PM, Michael Niedermayer > > > <mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > >> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 15:01:11) > > >>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > >>> [...] > > >>>> their preferred wording, and then we can have the GA vote on it. > > >>> > > >>> Before this GA vote, we need another extra member discussion/vote. > > >>> Because the last GA reset droped several developers from the GA > > >> > > >> I see neither why would we "need" such a vote, or why should it be > > >> related to this one. > > > > > > Because thats what was done in the past. > > > The extra member vote was done between a GA reset and the following votes > > > like the CC/TC votes > > > The exception was the STF vote because there just was not enough time > > > > > > We should do this consistently, and > > > given that we reset the GA every 6 months, thats the natural rate > > > at which to do a extra member vote (unless there is no other vote then > > > the extra member vote can be skiped as it would make no difference) > > > > It's not clear from https://www.ffmpeg.org/community.html that the extra > > members should be refreshed every time the GA is updated or that a vote > > should get held up if that hasn't happened yet. > > > > > > Additional members are added to the General Assembly through a vote after > > > proposal by a member of the General Assembly. They are part of the GA for > > > two years, after which they need a confirmation by the GA. > > > > It looks like a request to add extra members to the GA should be done > > explicitly by someone requesting a vote on it, which can be done at any > > time. Waiting until something else comes up for a vote seems suboptimal > > because it then delays that first decision by at least a couple of weeks > > (given the rules for voting). > > We probably dont vote every 6 month on anything > > If we wait for a vote, and only then do a extra member vote before, that would > result in some delay but fewer votes > > Than > > if someone starts a extra member vote every 6 month because its unknown if > maybe in the next 6 month there could be a vote > > so for me, it seemed natural to only do this when theres some decision > to be made. (which yes, could add some delay) > This is also what we did previously. we only did extra member votes when there > was something to vote on like CC/TC
No, this is not what happened. We did the extra member votes as a part of a "grand reset" of the voting system, after it was gridlocked for years. I agree with Cosmin that it does not follow that we have to vote for extra members as a prelude to any other vote. Moreover, you seem to be arguing yet again that anyone dropped from GA because of inactivity needs to be added back as an extra member. You've raised this point before, and GA disagreed, repeatedly. First in 2020 when it was agreed that GA is made up of *active contributors*. Then again last October, when your proposal to never drop anyone from GA lost by a large margin to the winning option. So if you want someone voted in as an extra member, feel free to propose a vote on them (assuming they consent), but please don't delay unrelated issues because of that. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
