> -----Original Message----- > From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-boun...@ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of > Niklas Haas > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:22 PM > To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg- > de...@ffmpeg.org> > Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 21:51:27 +0100 Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> > wrote: > > Niklas Haas (12025-01-29): > > > I think the most important crux of the problem is a fundamental > disagreement > > > between Michael and the "community" (for lack of a better term) > about the role > > > of the CC (and by extension, the GA). > > > > That is a very biassed way of stating it. > > > > For one thing, it is not Michael alone on one side. > > 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).
You might be on a right track here, because I believe that the common assessment as laid out by several supporters of the "community governance model" matches reality just partially at best. The common telling is that there's Michael on one side with a number of "his buddies" or "surrogates" and on the other side there's "the community" who want the project to be led by "the community" - all in agreement. But that might be just wishful storytelling, as the situation is more complicated indeed. None of us have any figures, so we can't know exactly before any vote has happened, what I want to point out though, is that this idea of "Michael + Buddies" vs. "The Community" doesn't fit in its simplicity. For example, I for myself am not a buddy of Michael. I don't know him at all beyond what's public, and while I'm glad to see that his description of the problems which the project has (which others are calling "wall of text") are very close to what I had written 3y ago, my primary motivation is of very different nature: When I look at this community - how people communicate, interact and behave - how different and scattered the individual intentions are - how much hatred and resentment exists - seeing the disability to resolve conflicts or even communicate properly - the attitude of demanding rights and power without taking responsibility and serving the project - and lastly the illusory idea that a project could be run and led, solely on the basis of voting on each and everything - all this (+more) brings me to that single conclusion: This "community" in its current form and appearance and the way it is represented by its members is fundamentally incapable of leading and executing control over a project like ffmpeg. I'm aware that there are projects where this is working, same as I've seen projects where all members are pretty much on the same line and when there's a committee with a handful of members, persons leave, other persons join, but that doesn't change anything because they all share the same ideas and plans and all are working together hand-in-hand. But this community - the "ffmpeg community" is a very different case. It disqualifies itself as a potential project owner or leader almost on a daily basis. IMO, this "community" getting control over the project is the worst thing that could happen, and no matter which alternatives there would be to vote for, I would always vote for these over "community" ownership. There are others who are watching this ML from a distance and thinking about the same - just silently. We don't know figures, but nobody should think it would be a sure thing that all "non-buddies" would want and vote for a community ownership. Further, many developers here are working for the industry in one or another form, and what businesses want is stability and predictability - not a community where majorities might be volatile and it can quickly happen that strategically important code is thrown out of ffmpeg by vote from a group of ideologists who managed to gain an intermittent majority. Finally, there are also contributors who don't care about community, membership or influence - they just want to get their code merged without trouble. Will they vote for a community governance where every little nit from someone will require to conduct a vote on it? TL/DR It shouldn't be taken for granted that there's even a majority for "community ownership". sw _______________________________________________ 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".
