> On May 17, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Clément Bœsch <u...@pkh.me> wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 05:50:25PM +0100, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
>> 1. Implement a formal CoC enforcement system. This has been mostly
>> from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no
>> be controversial.
> So as mentioned already in the thread, the main issue is having a
> police/justice entity. I would say it needs to be separate from the
> development team (to maintain a power separation). Since such profile
> doesn't seem to be exactly common in the open source world, maybe we could
> externalize it. Does such a service exist with reasonable prices? Could we
> use our funds for this? I understand this may sound far-fetched, but who
CoC enforcement as a paid service sounds alarming. Though it might make sense
to consider people separate from the development team for the role. There are
likely many who would like to contribute to the FFmpeg project but not as a
developer who could consider such a role.
> If such solution is not viable, we could fallback on the voting committee
> to elect/design a subgroup of itself (an odd number like 3 persons maybe?)
> to hold this moderation task for a period of 3 or 6 months, maybe 1 year.
> Then these members are automatically maintainer of the CoC for this period
> of time, and decide what to do with it.
> Just random thoughts, no hard opinion on it to be honest.
I like this suggestion for a small committee to be tasked and trusted with such
actions. I consider that it might be easier to find rough consensus in scenario
a than in scenario b.
a) the larger ffmpeg community finds consensus to appoint a CoC committee and
as needed the CoC committee finds consensus (as a small group) on how to
respond to concerns from the community and to implement the CoC.
b) the larger ffmpeg community finds consensus on how to implement the CoC
directly each time there’s a concern from the community.
ffmpeg-devel mailing list