Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[grady player]

There are lots of developers that consume FFMPEG and have a vested interest in 
its development continuing smoothly... I count myself among them.
I dont think it would be hard to impanel a group (3-4) of reasonable and 
dispassionate people to officiate and moderate public communication.

As an observer it seems like some of the disagreements fall into a few 
categories.

1) Constructive criticism done in a way that could be interpreted as 
threatening or dismissive.

2) Legitimate disagreements about implementation (reuse side_data or add a 
field to a struct; etc).

3) Language that might be completely acceptable in another language or in 
verbal communication, but "Comes off wrong" in the context of a code review.

4) The least common is someone actually being intentionally malicious... this 
is much, much less common than it used to be.

Then there are complicating personality factors: 

Some people take criticism poorly, and take personal offense when no ill will 
is intended.
Core developers have been working together for a long time, and often times 
there is some stored up ill will.

with a spelled out code of conduct you get rules and transgressions of rules, 
and reprimands and ultimatums, etc... but the incentives don't work well with 
volunteers.
It seems like it would be more effective to have a body that can just 
communicate a community standard out of band of this list.

If a CoC needs to be in place in order to banish someone to a new email 
address... or to have process to strip committing privileges, so be it.

-- grady (uninformed spectator)



> On May 17, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Dave Rice  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On May 17, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Clément Bœsch  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 
>>> copypasted
>>>  from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no 
>>> doubt
>>>  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
>> knows.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Dave Rice
> 
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org 
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel 
> 
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Dave Rice]

> On May 17, 2018, at 10:22 AM, Clément Bœsch  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 
>> copypasted
>>   from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no 
>> doubt
>>   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
> knows.

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.

Dave Rice

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Rostislav Pehlivanov]

On 17 May 2018 at 15:22, Clément Bœsch  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
> copypasted
> >from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will
> no doubt
> >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
> knows.
>

This is utterly ridiculous.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Clément Bœsch]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 05:50:25PM +0100, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
[...]
> 1. Implement a formal CoC enforcement system. This has been mostly 
> copypasted
>from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no 
> doubt
>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
knows.

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.

Regards,

-- 
Clément B.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Michael Niedermayer
 wrote:
> I have no magic bullet sadly, which is why i didnt reply.

Even lacking a solution, a public agreement that change is needed
is a start, isn't it?

> But if there is a consensus to enforce some CoC. Then it will be enforced.
> I think there is no such consensus though. And
> i dont (just) mean we lack consensus to kick people and close accounts,
> no not at all, it starts before that.

It is hard to get a consensus on handling abuse from members of
the community to are very prone to abuse, shockingly enough...

> Compare this to a case that has consensus. Like someone posting spam
> everyone will agree thats not ok or stay silent. Theres no lack
> of solutions and noone will need to write rules on how to deal with it.

[...]

> OTOH, when someone acts hostile. Most stay silent, someone might
> voice their opposition and chances are a few people will join
> either side depending on who they are better friends with.
> Now you have a problem and its difficult to handle with penalties,
> as there are 2 parties each beliving they are the good side and the other has
> done wrong.

It is not hard to enforce simple runs like VideoLAN has where, for
example, if you insult someone (call them names, etc.) you get
a 24h ban. It *does not matter who is right*. It's extremely clear
cut with such a ruleset. What is the objection to such a thing? That
we can't agree on or identify when someone is purposely insulting
someone? At the very least, in cases where it is extremely obvious
this occurs, something should happen, no? If I call someone a
jackass, is there really another way to interpret that, for example?

> I think people should try to interpret others statements in a friendly
> way. Always try to act friendly and respectful towards others and
> try to help resolve conflicts and misunderstanings when they occur.

This is an idealized world that doesn't reflect the current reality.
I would love it if this were true. It isn't.

> When 2 people fight dont join the fight on the side of ones friend
> but try to resolve / stop the issue between the people ...

[...]

> Also iam not sure you are aware of it, but you have IMO been quite
> good at defusing / helping when there where conflicts/hostilities
> between people. I think we need more people with this talent

I agree, though nobody is faultless, and a single person alone
can't be in charge of diffusing everything. If anything, it is not
fair to that person.

- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:25:01AM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> On 5/16/2018 11:07 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
> >  wrote:
> >> This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
> >> and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, 
> >> personal
> >> attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread 
> >> will
> >> die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
> >> but history speaks for itself.
> > 
> > 48 hours later and:
> > - Some votes for repealing the CoC.
> > - One vote for keeping
> 
> I think the issue is not the lack of clear enforcement rules, but a lack
> of a proactive enforcer, be it a person or a body. The CoC has done
> nothing but give people something to say when they want to be passive
> aggressive in a discussion.
> Changing it to a more strict one like Videolan's will not affect that.
> 
> This lack of interest you mentioned is exactly the issue. If it all
> depends on the coordinated action and involvement of a dozen or so
> developers, then nothing will happen. As i said, the one time action was
> called for a developer's behavior, no voter showed up.
> 
> I'm up for keeping it or making it stricter. But it needs to be
> enforced. So how do we get a dozen or so people to stop looking away
> every time someone is a dick in a thread?

I have no magic bullet sadly, which is why i didnt reply.
But if there is a consensus to enforce some CoC. Then it will be enforced.
I think there is no such consensus though. And
i dont (just) mean we lack consensus to kick people and close accounts, 
no not at all, it starts before that.

Compare this to a case that has consensus. Like someone posting spam
everyone will agree thats not ok or stay silent. Theres no lack
of solutions and noone will need to write rules on how to deal with it.

OTOH, when someone acts hostile. Most stay silent, someone might
voice their opposition and chances are a few people will join
either side depending on who they are better friends with.
Now you have a problem and its difficult to handle with penalties,
as there are 2 parties each beliving they are the good side and the other has
done wrong.

I think people should try to interpret others statements in a friendly
way. Always try to act friendly and respectful towards others and
try to help resolve conflicts and misunderstanings when they occur.
When 2 people fight dont join the fight on the side of ones friend
but try to resolve / stop the issue between the people ...

Also iam not sure you are aware of it, but you have IMO been quite
good at defusing / helping when there where conflicts/hostilities
between people. I think we need more people with this talent


[...]
-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Modern terrorism, a quick summary: Need oil, start war with country that
has oil, kill hundread thousand in war. Let country fall into chaos,
be surprised about raise of fundamantalists. Drop more bombs, kill more
people, be surprised about them taking revenge and drop even more bombs
and strip your own citizens of their rights and freedoms. to be continued


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz]

On 05/16/2018 08:06 PM, wm4 wrote:

I actually don't have much of a solution to the "nobody willing to step
up" problem, though, no. The offical documents should at least reflect
that reality then, though. A CoC that is ignored, is not a CoC.

True, in that case it's better to remove the CoC because it's
completely misleading about our community.


 +1



___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel


___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[wm4]

On Wed, 16 May 2018 15:44:36 +0100
Derek Buitenhuis  wrote:

> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:25 PM, James Almer  wrote:
> > I think the issue is not the lack of clear enforcement rules, but a lack
> > of a proactive enforcer, be it a person or a body. The CoC has done
> > nothing but give people something to say when they want to be passive
> > aggressive in a discussion.
> > Changing it to a more strict one like Videolan's will not affect that.
> >
> > This lack of interest you mentioned is exactly the issue. If it all
> > depends on the coordinated action and involvement of a dozen or so
> > developers, then nothing will happen. As i said, the one time action was
> > called for a developer's behavior, no voter showed up.  
> 
> So how does one fix a toxic environment where most of the members
> don't care, or don't even aknowledge it's an issue? Let it hemmorage
> people, keeping a few here and there who can "take it" (which IMO is
> a load of gross gatekeeping BS)?
> 
> (Yes, As far as I'm concerned, staying away / not replying / doing nothing
> si just an implicit way of saying "I'm fine with the community as it is". )
> 
> I actually don't have much of a solution to the "nobody willing to step
> up" problem, though, no. The offical documents should at least reflect
> that reality then, though. A CoC that is ignored, is not a CoC.

True, in that case it's better to remove the CoC because it's
completely misleading about our community.

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:07 AM, Derek Buitenhuis <
derek.buitenh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
>  wrote:
> > This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
> > and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely,
> personal
> > attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread
> will
> > die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be
> pessimistic,
> > but history speaks for itself.
>
[..]

> - As suspected, a large chunk of the project's developers have
>   simply not replied, hoping it just goes away or blows over, or
>   don't care.


Maybe this is included in the "not care", but I don't think any of this
will change. I've tried, I'm tired and have given up.

Ronald
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Volkert  wrote:
>> Maybe the solution should be something that does not require all those
>> people to convene everytime there is some petty trolling going on
>> again.
> Yes.

Suggestions welcome...

>> There is a big difference between "not caring" and not wanting to get
>> involved with this on a daily basis,
> Correct.

There is also a difference between not wanting to get involved on a
daily basis, and *never* getting involved, even once, to hash a system
that can handle it.

- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Thomas Volkert]

On 16.05.2018 17:14, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:25 PM, James Almer  wrote:
>> On 5/16/2018 11:07 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
>>>  wrote:
 This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
 and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, 
 personal
 attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread 
 will
 die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
 but history speaks for itself.
>>> 48 hours later and:
>>> - Some votes for repealing the CoC.
>>> - One vote for keeping
>> I think the issue is not the lack of clear enforcement rules, but a lack
>> of a proactive enforcer, be it a person or a body. The CoC has done
>> nothing but give people something to say when they want to be passive
>> aggressive in a discussion.
>> Changing it to a more strict one like Videolan's will not affect that.
>>
>> This lack of interest you mentioned is exactly the issue. If it all
>> depends on the coordinated action and involvement of a dozen or so
>> developers, then nothing will happen. As i said, the one time action was
>> called for a developer's behavior, no voter showed up.
>>
>> I'm up for keeping it or making it stricter. But it needs to be
>> enforced. So how do we get a dozen or so people to stop looking away
>> every time someone is a dick in a thread?
>>
> Maybe the solution should be something that does not require all those
> people to convene everytime there is some petty trolling going on
> again.
Yes.

>
> There is a big difference between "not caring" and not wanting to get
> involved with this on a daily basis, 
Correct.

> even if you guys seem to throw
> all of those into the same pile.


Best regards,
Thomas.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:25 PM, James Almer  wrote:
> On 5/16/2018 11:07 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
>>  wrote:
>>> This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
>>> and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, personal
>>> attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread will
>>> die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
>>> but history speaks for itself.
>>
>> 48 hours later and:
>> - Some votes for repealing the CoC.
>> - One vote for keeping
>
> I think the issue is not the lack of clear enforcement rules, but a lack
> of a proactive enforcer, be it a person or a body. The CoC has done
> nothing but give people something to say when they want to be passive
> aggressive in a discussion.
> Changing it to a more strict one like Videolan's will not affect that.
>
> This lack of interest you mentioned is exactly the issue. If it all
> depends on the coordinated action and involvement of a dozen or so
> developers, then nothing will happen. As i said, the one time action was
> called for a developer's behavior, no voter showed up.
>
> I'm up for keeping it or making it stricter. But it needs to be
> enforced. So how do we get a dozen or so people to stop looking away
> every time someone is a dick in a thread?
>

Maybe the solution should be something that does not require all those
people to convene everytime there is some petty trolling going on
again.

There is a big difference between "not caring" and not wanting to get
involved with this on a daily basis, even if you guys seem to throw
all of those into the same pile.

- Hendrik
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 3:25 PM, James Almer  wrote:
> I think the issue is not the lack of clear enforcement rules, but a lack
> of a proactive enforcer, be it a person or a body. The CoC has done
> nothing but give people something to say when they want to be passive
> aggressive in a discussion.
> Changing it to a more strict one like Videolan's will not affect that.
>
> This lack of interest you mentioned is exactly the issue. If it all
> depends on the coordinated action and involvement of a dozen or so
> developers, then nothing will happen. As i said, the one time action was
> called for a developer's behavior, no voter showed up.

So how does one fix a toxic environment where most of the members
don't care, or don't even aknowledge it's an issue? Let it hemmorage
people, keeping a few here and there who can "take it" (which IMO is
a load of gross gatekeeping BS)?

(Yes, As far as I'm concerned, staying away / not replying / doing nothing
si just an implicit way of saying "I'm fine with the community as it is". )

I actually don't have much of a solution to the "nobody willing to step
up" problem, though, no. The offical documents should at least reflect
that reality then, though. A CoC that is ignored, is not a CoC.

- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[James Almer]

On 5/16/2018 11:07 AM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
>  wrote:
>> This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
>> and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, personal
>> attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread will
>> die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
>> but history speaks for itself.
> 
> 48 hours later and:
> - Some votes for repealing the CoC.
> - One vote for keeping

I think the issue is not the lack of clear enforcement rules, but a lack
of a proactive enforcer, be it a person or a body. The CoC has done
nothing but give people something to say when they want to be passive
aggressive in a discussion.
Changing it to a more strict one like Videolan's will not affect that.

This lack of interest you mentioned is exactly the issue. If it all
depends on the coordinated action and involvement of a dozen or so
developers, then nothing will happen. As i said, the one time action was
called for a developer's behavior, no voter showed up.

I'm up for keeping it or making it stricter. But it needs to be
enforced. So how do we get a dozen or so people to stop looking away
every time someone is a dick in a thread?

> - Some replies that do neither, but prefer to attack the example
>   rather than the actual point of the email.
> - As suspected, a large chunk of the project's developers have
>   simply not replied, hoping it just goes away or blows over, or
>   don't care.
> 
> I'd say the prediction was pretty accurated. I don't forsee any change, as per
> usual. Just some flames, and nothing happens, as is tradition. Can't change
> a community who are not interested and/or actively hostile to trying to be
> less toxic. (inb4 'I just want to write code and not do politics/etc." 
> replies,
> which really mean 'I am OK with the way it is and can't be arsed to make
> it less toxic for others.')
> 
> Cheers,
> - Derek
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
 wrote:
> This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
> and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, personal
> attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread will
> die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
> but history speaks for itself.

48 hours later and:
- Some votes for repealing the CoC.
- One vote for keeping
- Some replies that do neither, but prefer to attack the example
  rather than the actual point of the email.
- As suspected, a large chunk of the project's developers have
  simply not replied, hoping it just goes away or blows over, or
  don't care.

I'd say the prediction was pretty accurated. I don't forsee any change, as per
usual. Just some flames, and nothing happens, as is tradition. Can't change
a community who are not interested and/or actively hostile to trying to be
less toxic. (inb4 'I just want to write code and not do politics/etc." replies,
which really mean 'I am OK with the way it is and can't be arsed to make
it less toxic for others.')

Cheers,
- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Jan Ekström]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Derek Buitenhuis
 wrote:
>
> So, I present to you two possible options:
>
> 1. Implement a formal CoC enforcement system. This has been mostly 
> copypasted
>from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no 
> doubt
>be controversial.
> 2. Remove the CoC. If you're not going to enforce it, ever, there is 
> literally
>no point in having one. I know some members of this community object 
> to the
>very notion of a CoC, so this should please them, I am sure.
>
> I'm sure this will be a civil discussion.

Hi,

Just voicing my opinion as a community member. Out of these two
examples (which they are) I'm preferring nr1, the CoC should be
improved (or a VideoLAN style one adopted) and we should make an
effort to try and minimize the amount of rudeness and bad behaviour in
this project.

Removing the CoC sounds to me like either we don't agree with the
notion of being civil with each other, or that we just can't as a
community handle civil discourse. Both of those alternatives make me
rather sad.

I know a lot of people want to just focus on the technical parts, and
in a perfect world we would be able to not have personal problems -
but I think we don't have a healthy community right now.

Of course, I am also fully aware that fixing the issues is going to
take way more than just applying a more specific CoC.

Best regards,
Jan
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Tomas Härdin]

tis 2018-05-15 klockan 09:10 -0400 skrev Devin Heitmueller:
> > I'm leaning toward 2, but there would need to be some other way to deal
> > with people not getting along. Maybe Mumble conferences where the
> > involved parties get to air their feelings on whatever is at issue? I
> > dunno
> 
> I'm not weighing in on the CoC so much as offering my experience with
> other open source projects.  I will say that getting the developers in
> a room face-to-face can be a *huge* help to improving relationships.
> It's so easy to say mean spirited things over email that you would
> never say to a person sitting in front of you and, as Tomas suggested,
> nuances like sarcasm are very easy to misinterpret (creating bad blood
> to people who otherwise wouldn't have a conflict).
> 
> Speaking from personal experience, I've had developers who I had a
> poor working relationship over email, and things significantly
> improved after meeting up over dinner/drinks.  It really reinforces
> that these people you are dealing with over email are real human
> beings (something that I think everyone needs to be reminded of once
> in a while).

Yeah, this is why I suggested Mumble. Physical meetings can be hard to
arrange more than once or twice per year, but telephony is always
possible.

> Of course there have been a few cases where when meeting a developer
> in person I had the realization that "wow, this person really is a
> jerk and it's not just a language barrier or poor email etiquette",
> but at least then you know for sure...

Yep. Especially when folks come from cultures that seem rude to outside
observers. Torvalds comes to mind.

/Tomas
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Devin Heitmueller]

> I'm leaning toward 2, but there would need to be some other way to deal
> with people not getting along. Maybe Mumble conferences where the
> involved parties get to air their feelings on whatever is at issue? I
> dunno

I'm not weighing in on the CoC so much as offering my experience with
other open source projects.  I will say that getting the developers in
a room face-to-face can be a *huge* help to improving relationships.
It's so easy to say mean spirited things over email that you would
never say to a person sitting in front of you and, as Tomas suggested,
nuances like sarcasm are very easy to misinterpret (creating bad blood
to people who otherwise wouldn't have a conflict).

Speaking from personal experience, I've had developers who I had a
poor working relationship over email, and things significantly
improved after meeting up over dinner/drinks.  It really reinforces
that these people you are dealing with over email are real human
beings (something that I think everyone needs to be reminded of once
in a while).

Of course there have been a few cases where when meeting a developer
in person I had the realization that "wow, this person really is a
jerk and it's not just a language barrier or poor email etiquette",
but at least then you know for sure...

Devin

-- 
Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs
http://www.kernellabs.com
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Tomas Härdin]

mån 2018-05-14 klockan 17:50 +0100 skrev Derek Buitenhuis:
> Hello all.
> 
> [...]
> 
> So, I present to you two possible options:
> 
> 1. Implement a formal CoC enforcement system. This has been mostly 
> copypasted
>    from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no 
> doubt
>    be controversial.
> 2. Remove the CoC. If you're not going to enforce it, ever, there is 
> literally
>    no point in having one. I know some members of this community object 
> to the
>    very notion of a CoC, so this should please them, I am sure.

Unfortunately, none of these options are particularly good..

I've been involved in this project since 2010 and it seems it's been
plagued with an inability to deal with conflict even before that. I'd
say it's almost endemic to the FLOSS movement due to a combination of
strong egos, poor social skills, text being an awful way to express
nuance, sexism and a whole bunch of other crap.

When it comes to FFmpeg specifically, the tendency to hold votes rather
than seek consensus has been a problem since at least the day Libav
forked off. I know from being involved in non-profits that you
typically don't want things to escalate to there having to be a vote,
since that tends to leave the losing side bitter.

I'm leaning toward 2, but there would need to be some other way to deal
with people not getting along. Maybe Mumble conferences where the
involved parties get to air their feelings on whatever is at issue? I
dunno

End stream of thought

/Tomas
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 8:54 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov
 wrote:
> We can't agree to disagree in this case, not if you seriously think that
> this is an attack. Would you continue to interpret such vague events as
> attacks? You gave it as an example after all.

You can use the example from May 2016 if you wish. It's just an example, and
not the point, which is wider.

What does it matter how *I* specifically interpret a attack? I am not the judge,
jury, and executioner. One of the points of a CoC is to have more than one
person review a supposed incident, instead of this incessant bickering we
have all come to love.

- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Rostislav Pehlivanov]

On 14 May 2018 at 19:23, Derek Buitenhuis 
wrote:

>
> We can agree to disagree. There's not much point in arguing
> over one specific event. This mail was not about clearing up
> a specific event, but a general problem. There's not much point
> in devolving into that.
>

We can't agree to disagree in this case, not if you seriously think that
this is an attack. Would you continue to interpret such vague events as
attacks? You gave it as an example after all.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Paul B Mahol]

On 5/14/18, Derek Buitenhuis  wrote:
>>> Lies, Lies and Lies.
>>
>>
>> I don't think it's a good thing to call a dev a liar based on limited
>> available information. If you have doubts, you can express it as such, but
>> don't assert doubts as truths.
>
> Hmm... there must be some reason that people continue ad hominem
> attacks even though we have a CoC... hmm.

So whatever I say, you will interpret it as attack.

So I will just ignore you from now on. As it is impossible to communicate.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[James Almer]

On 5/14/2018 3:10 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:
> On 14 May 2018 at 18:45, Derek Buitenhuis 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov
>>  wrote:
>>> iive just noticed you joined, said hi, and you left saying you were
>>> attacked. Since when is a normal form of welcoming back considered an
>>> attack? I agree with jamrial, you definitely overreacted.
>>
>> If you actually believe it was a welcome back, you must be willfully
>> ignorant of ... well, iive. I may note I purposely was not mentioning
>> specific names.
>>
>> Day I left:
>>
>> [21:34:17 CEST]  jamrial: Derek for sure will cause more
>> problems, when he comes back. He will come back.
>>
> 
> Yes, its an attack. A full year before you rejoined for a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
>> 13:23  -!- Daemon404 [~who_knows@pdpc/supporter/student/Daemon404] has
>> joined #ffmpeg-devel
>> 13:46 <@iive> and Daemon404 is back.
>>
>>
> That's a greeting, a welcoming back. You know, you're with friends, you get
> some money together, one of you goes to the store to grab a few beers, he
> comes back, "Ah, and you're back, and you bought enough beers, great.".

No, it's not a greeting or a welcoming back. It was a statement.
Now, friendly or unfriendly? I don't know. But the context doesn't
support the former option.

Still, i still think it was something that should have been ignored.

> It
> would be an attack if someone said "Ah, and you're back, and I see you
> bought the worst flavored water they sold there and kept the change.".  You
> don't walk out with the beers as soon as you hear "Ah, and you're back"
> because that someone attacked your personal choice last time you went to
> the store and this time you made some effort to find something else for
> them.
> 
> 
> 
>> That should put to rest an notion it was a friendly "welcome back".
>>
> 
> Sorry, still not seeing it as an attack. When you left, sure, but not when
> you returned.
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

>> Lies, Lies and Lies.
>
>
> I don't think it's a good thing to call a dev a liar based on limited
> available information. If you have doubts, you can express it as such, but
> don't assert doubts as truths.

Hmm... there must be some reason that people continue ad hominem
attacks even though we have a CoC... hmm.

- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov
 wrote:
> That's a greeting, a welcoming back. You know, you're with friends, you get
> some money together, one of you goes to the store to grab a few beers, he
> comes back, "Ah, and you're back, and you bought enough beers, great.". It
> would be an attack if someone said "Ah, and you're back, and I see you
> bought the worst flavored water they sold there and kept the change.".  You
> don't walk out with the beers as soon as you hear "Ah, and you're back"
> because that someone attacked your personal choice last time you went to
> the store and this time you made some effort to find something else for
> them.

... What? This is either the most naive interpretation of events I have ever
read, or it's disingenuous. iive has never been anything even approaching
friendly to me, ever. It also ignores context entirely.

>> That should put to rest an notion it was a friendly "welcome back".
>
> Sorry, still not seeing it as an attack. When you left, sure, but not when
> you returned.

We can agree to disagree. There's not much point in arguing
over one specific event. This mail was not about clearing up
a specific event, but a general problem. There's not much point
in devolving into that.

- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Rostislav Pehlivanov]

On 14 May 2018 at 18:45, Derek Buitenhuis 
wrote:

> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov
>  wrote:
> > iive just noticed you joined, said hi, and you left saying you were
> > attacked. Since when is a normal form of welcoming back considered an
> > attack? I agree with jamrial, you definitely overreacted.
>
> If you actually believe it was a welcome back, you must be willfully
> ignorant of ... well, iive. I may note I purposely was not mentioning
> specific names.
>
> Day I left:
>
> [21:34:17 CEST]  jamrial: Derek for sure will cause more
> problems, when he comes back. He will come back.
>

Yes, its an attack. A full year before you rejoined for a few minutes.



> 13:23  -!- Daemon404 [~who_knows@pdpc/supporter/student/Daemon404] has
> joined #ffmpeg-devel
> 13:46 <@iive> and Daemon404 is back.
>
>
That's a greeting, a welcoming back. You know, you're with friends, you get
some money together, one of you goes to the store to grab a few beers, he
comes back, "Ah, and you're back, and you bought enough beers, great.". It
would be an attack if someone said "Ah, and you're back, and I see you
bought the worst flavored water they sold there and kept the change.".  You
don't walk out with the beers as soon as you hear "Ah, and you're back"
because that someone attacked your personal choice last time you went to
the store and this time you made some effort to find something else for
them.



> That should put to rest an notion it was a friendly "welcome back".
>

Sorry, still not seeing it as an attack. When you left, sure, but not when
you returned.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Paul B Mahol  wrote:

> On 5/14/18, Derek Buitenhuis  wrote:
> > Hello all.
> >
> > This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
> > and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely,
> personal
> > attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread
> will
> > die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be
> pessimistic,
> > but history speaks for itself.
> >
> > Currently this list, and IRC, is a terrible place for developers and
> users.
> > Harassment is tolerated, and the CoC has never been enforced. There are
> > absolutely no repercussions as it currently stands. When develpers see
> > others
> > being abused, do nothing and then continue to act and interact with the
> > abuses as if nothing happened, in the future.
> >
> > This current set up of everybody flaming each other endlessly, and
> endless
> > harassment merely lets abuse proliferate, because nobody sticks up for
> each
> > other and no abusers have ever been removed, ever, in the history of
> FFmpeg.
> > Not one thing has changed, ever, since the introduction of the CoC. It is
> > an absolute failure by all metrics.
> >
> > I know I am not alone having been driven away by such behavior. Even when
> > I started to contribute (a little, not much) again, upon joining IRC, for
> > example, I was immediately attacked. This is not just happening to one
> > person though.
>
> Lies, Lies and Lies.


I don't think it's a good thing to call a dev a liar based on limited
available information. If you have doubts, you can express it as such, but
don't assert doubts as truths.

Ronald
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:28 PM, Rostislav Pehlivanov
 wrote:
> iive just noticed you joined, said hi, and you left saying you were
> attacked. Since when is a normal form of welcoming back considered an
> attack? I agree with jamrial, you definitely overreacted.

If you actually believe it was a welcome back, you must be willfully
ignorant of ... well, iive. I may note I purposely was not mentioning
specific names.

Day I left:

[21:34:17 CEST]  jamrial: Derek for sure will cause more
problems, when he comes back. He will come back.

13:23  -!- Daemon404 [~who_knows@pdpc/supporter/student/Daemon404] has
joined #ffmpeg-devel
13:46 <@iive> and Daemon404 is back.

Full log here: 
http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel-irc/2016-May/003572.html

That should put to rest an notion it was a friendly "welcome back".

- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Jean-Baptiste Kempf]

Hello,

On Mon, 14 May 2018, at 19:28, Rostislav Pehlivanov wrote:

> 2's a nice option.  The recent llvm fiasco demonstrated the dangers of CoCs
> being used by the wrong people.

This is the danger with very political and very vague CoC, emphasing on 
"political correctness", like LLVM's

VideoLAN CoC is the opposite of that, and it is closer to a law (insult someone 
-> ban) than the other CoCs.
It's very precise compared to all the other CoC.

-- 
Jean-Baptiste Kempf -  President
+33 672 704 734
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:24 PM, James Almer  wrote:
> As it currently stands, the only way to enforce the CoC is with a vote,
> from a committee made from a list of ~20 devs about three or so years
> ago who may or may not still be active, and who may or may not even know
> enough about what is being voted.
> Said committee was good for a few technical decisions back in the day,
> but as soon as you introduce a vote related to developer conduct, all
> the flaws become evident. Hell, even an IRC meeting was called once, but
> then nobody wanted to touch the subject with a ten foot pole in it.

A.K.A. Nothing is enforced.

> I suppose you're talking about some months ago when you joined and iive
> said something like "oh, he's back" or some such. I personally think you
> overreacted in that situation, but i also find it odd you haven't muted
> someone you have never liked to deal with, seeing plenty other devs do it.

A little more than that, but yeah.

However, "just mute the troll/jerk/etc" is really not a valid strategy
for maintaining a healthy community. Yeah, just ignore the abuser. That's
always a great piece of advice. This is what I meant by "nothing has ever
been done".

- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Rostislav Pehlivanov]

On 14 May 2018 at 17:50, Derek Buitenhuis 
wrote:

> Hello all.
>
> This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
> and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely,
> personal
> attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread
> will
> die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
> but history speaks for itself.
>
> Currently this list, and IRC, is a terrible place for developers and users.
> Harassment is tolerated, and the CoC has never been enforced. There are
> absolutely no repercussions as it currently stands. When develpers see
> others
> being abused, do nothing and then continue to act and interact with the
> abuses as if nothing happened, in the future.
>
> This current set up of everybody flaming each other endlessly, and endless
> harassment merely lets abuse proliferate, because nobody sticks up for each
> other and no abusers have ever been removed, ever, in the history of
> FFmpeg.
> Not one thing has changed, ever, since the introduction of the CoC. It is
> an absolute failure by all metrics.
>
> I know I am not alone having been driven away by such behavior. Even when
> I started to contribute (a little, not much) again, upon joining IRC, for
> example, I was immediately attacked. This is not just happening to one
> person though.
>

iive just noticed you joined, said hi, and you left saying you were
attacked. Since when is a normal form of welcoming back considered an
attack? I agree with jamrial, you definitely overreacted.


To be honest, I am not really sure what can be done. Large portions of
> the list simply do not support anti-abuse measures at all. Even the
> concept of them. How does one manage to implement them without support
> of even 50% of a community? VideoLAN managed to do this but it took a lot
> of formal stuff on their board and people quitting to get it done. j-b
> is some sort of wizard.
>
> I know my opinion is not worth much, since I am now more or less an
> outsider
> since 2015, but maybe someone cares about this stuff, too.
>
> So, I present to you two possible options:
>
> 1. Implement a formal CoC enforcement system. This has been mostly
> copypasted
>from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no
> doubt
>be controversial.
> 2. Remove the CoC. If you're not going to enforce it, ever, there is
> literally
>no point in having one. I know some members of this community
> object to the
>very notion of a CoC, so this should please them, I am sure.
>
> I'm sure this will be a civil discussion.
>

2's a nice option.  The recent llvm fiasco demonstrated the dangers of CoCs
being used by the wrong people.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[James Almer]

On 5/14/2018 1:50 PM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> Hello all.
> 
> This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
> and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, personal
> attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread will
> die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
> but history speaks for itself.
> 
> Currently this list, and IRC, is a terrible place for developers and users.
> Harassment is tolerated, and the CoC has never been enforced. There are
> absolutely no repercussions as it currently stands. When develpers see others
> being abused, do nothing and then continue to act and interact with the
> abuses as if nothing happened, in the future.

As it currently stands, the only way to enforce the CoC is with a vote,
from a committee made from a list of ~20 devs about three or so years
ago who may or may not still be active, and who may or may not even know
enough about what is being voted.
Said committee was good for a few technical decisions back in the day,
but as soon as you introduce a vote related to developer conduct, all
the flaws become evident. Hell, even an IRC meeting was called once, but
then nobody wanted to touch the subject with a ten foot pole in it.

> 
> This current set up of everybody flaming each other endlessly, and endless
> harassment merely lets abuse proliferate, because nobody sticks up for each
> other and no abusers have ever been removed, ever, in the history of FFmpeg.
> Not one thing has changed, ever, since the introduction of the CoC. It is
> an absolute failure by all metrics.
> 
> I know I am not alone having been driven away by such behavior. Even when
> I started to contribute (a little, not much) again, upon joining IRC, for
> example, I was immediately attacked. This is not just happening to one
> person though.

I suppose you're talking about some months ago when you joined and iive
said something like "oh, he's back" or some such. I personally think you
overreacted in that situation, but i also find it odd you haven't muted
someone you have never liked to deal with, seeing plenty other devs do it.

> 
> To be honest, I am not really sure what can be done. Large portions of
> the list simply do not support anti-abuse measures at all. Even the
> concept of them. How does one manage to implement them without support
> of even 50% of a community? VideoLAN managed to do this but it took a lot
> of formal stuff on their board and people quitting to get it done. j-b
> is some sort of wizard.
> 
> I know my opinion is not worth much, since I am now more or less an outsider
> since 2015, but maybe someone cares about this stuff, too.
> 
> So, I present to you two possible options:
> 
> 1. Implement a formal CoC enforcement system. This has been mostly 
> copypasted
>from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no 
> doubt
>be controversial.
> 2. Remove the CoC. If you're not going to enforce it, ever, there is 
> literally
>no point in having one. I know some members of this community object 
> to the
>very notion of a CoC, so this should please them, I am sure.
> 
> I'm sure this will be a civil discussion.
> 
> - Derek
> 

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[wm4]

On Mon, 14 May 2018 17:50:25 +0100
Derek Buitenhuis  wrote:

> Hello all.
> 
> This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
> and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, personal
> attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread will
> die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
> but history speaks for itself.
> 
> Currently this list, and IRC, is a terrible place for developers and users.
> Harassment is tolerated, and the CoC has never been enforced. There are
> absolutely no repercussions as it currently stands. When develpers see others
> being abused, do nothing and then continue to act and interact with the
> abuses as if nothing happened, in the future.
> 
> This current set up of everybody flaming each other endlessly, and endless
> harassment merely lets abuse proliferate, because nobody sticks up for each
> other and no abusers have ever been removed, ever, in the history of FFmpeg.
> Not one thing has changed, ever, since the introduction of the CoC. It is
> an absolute failure by all metrics.
> 
> I know I am not alone having been driven away by such behavior. Even when
> I started to contribute (a little, not much) again, upon joining IRC, for
> example, I was immediately attacked. This is not just happening to one
> person though.
> 
> To be honest, I am not really sure what can be done. Large portions of
> the list simply do not support anti-abuse measures at all. Even the
> concept of them. How does one manage to implement them without support
> of even 50% of a community? VideoLAN managed to do this but it took a lot
> of formal stuff on their board and people quitting to get it done. j-b
> is some sort of wizard.
> 
> I know my opinion is not worth much, since I am now more or less an outsider
> since 2015, but maybe someone cares about this stuff, too.
> 
> So, I present to you two possible options:
> 
> 1. Implement a formal CoC enforcement system. This has been mostly 
> copypasted
>from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no 
> doubt
>be controversial.
> 2. Remove the CoC. If you're not going to enforce it, ever, there is 
> literally
>no point in having one. I know some members of this community object 
> to the
>very notion of a CoC, so this should please them, I am sure.
> 
> I'm sure this will be a civil discussion.

1, please. I don't want PC reeducation camps, but not having a
kindergarten would be nice.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Paul B Mahol]

On 5/14/18, Derek Buitenhuis  wrote:
> Hello all.
>
> This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
> and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, personal
> attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread will
> die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
> but history speaks for itself.
>
> Currently this list, and IRC, is a terrible place for developers and users.
> Harassment is tolerated, and the CoC has never been enforced. There are
> absolutely no repercussions as it currently stands. When develpers see
> others
> being abused, do nothing and then continue to act and interact with the
> abuses as if nothing happened, in the future.
>
> This current set up of everybody flaming each other endlessly, and endless
> harassment merely lets abuse proliferate, because nobody sticks up for each
> other and no abusers have ever been removed, ever, in the history of FFmpeg.
> Not one thing has changed, ever, since the introduction of the CoC. It is
> an absolute failure by all metrics.
>
> I know I am not alone having been driven away by such behavior. Even when
> I started to contribute (a little, not much) again, upon joining IRC, for
> example, I was immediately attacked. This is not just happening to one
> person though.

Lies, Lies and Lies.

>
> To be honest, I am not really sure what can be done. Large portions of
> the list simply do not support anti-abuse measures at all. Even the
> concept of them. How does one manage to implement them without support
> of even 50% of a community? VideoLAN managed to do this but it took a lot
> of formal stuff on their board and people quitting to get it done. j-b
> is some sort of wizard.
>
> I know my opinion is not worth much, since I am now more or less an outsider
> since 2015, but maybe someone cares about this stuff, too.
>
> So, I present to you two possible options:
>
> 1. Implement a formal CoC enforcement system. This has been mostly
> copypasted
>from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no
> doubt
>be controversial.
> 2. Remove the CoC. If you're not going to enforce it, ever, there is
> literally
>no point in having one. I know some members of this community object
> to the
>very notion of a CoC, so this should please them, I am sure.
>
> I'm sure this will be a civil discussion.

I vote for 2.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC][ALT PATCHES] Code of Conduct Enforcement

[Derek Buitenhuis]

Hello all.

This is a little rambling / stream of thought, but take it as you will,
and perhaps some discussion or change comes of it. Or, more likely, personal
attacks, flames, and no change. Or 1 few will reply and then the thread will
die and people will go on like it never happened. Sorry to be pessimistic,
but history speaks for itself.

Currently this list, and IRC, is a terrible place for developers and users.
Harassment is tolerated, and the CoC has never been enforced. There are
absolutely no repercussions as it currently stands. When develpers see others
being abused, do nothing and then continue to act and interact with the
abuses as if nothing happened, in the future.

This current set up of everybody flaming each other endlessly, and endless
harassment merely lets abuse proliferate, because nobody sticks up for each
other and no abusers have ever been removed, ever, in the history of FFmpeg.
Not one thing has changed, ever, since the introduction of the CoC. It is
an absolute failure by all metrics.

I know I am not alone having been driven away by such behavior. Even when
I started to contribute (a little, not much) again, upon joining IRC, for
example, I was immediately attacked. This is not just happening to one
person though.

To be honest, I am not really sure what can be done. Large portions of
the list simply do not support anti-abuse measures at all. Even the
concept of them. How does one manage to implement them without support
of even 50% of a community? VideoLAN managed to do this but it took a lot
of formal stuff on their board and people quitting to get it done. j-b
is some sort of wizard.

I know my opinion is not worth much, since I am now more or less an outsider
since 2015, but maybe someone cares about this stuff, too.

So, I present to you two possible options:

1. Implement a formal CoC enforcement system. This has been mostly 
copypasted
   from VideoLAN's, and is meant as more of a blueprint. This will no doubt
   be controversial.
2. Remove the CoC. If you're not going to enforce it, ever, there is 
literally
   no point in having one. I know some members of this community object to 
the
   very notion of a CoC, so this should please them, I am sure.

I'm sure this will be a civil discussion.

- Derek

-- 
1.8.3.1

___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel