Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Ganesh Ajjanagadde]

On Jun 4, 2016 09:45, "Michael Niedermayer"  wrote:
>
> CCing lukasz and ganesh ...
> so they can correct what we misremember if they want, also dont want
> to speak about people behind their back ...
>
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:26:22PM -0300, James Almer wrote:
> > On 6/4/2016 7:33 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 10:30:32AM +0200, Piotr Bandurski wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> The problem with this project is that it has not enough active
developers. It looks like most of the devs swiched into "stand-by" mode or
something
> > >> and sadly no new people are joining in to push development forward ;)
> > >
> > > There where new developers but i have the feeling many of them where
> > > treated rather hostile by the community until they decreased activity
> > > or disappeared examples are lukasz
> >
> > I don't know enough about his case aside from i think there being
> > differences with other devs regarding his GSoC 2015 mentored project
> > for me to comment.
>
> I think there where more cases than GSoC itself
> rather a general opposition to some network / ffm / ffserver related
> work. Leaving several areas unmaintained now as a result.
>
> IMO no matter how much one disagrees with someone elses work
> if one doesnt intend to do a better job oneself, one should be humble
> and polite with critique or at least not "shit at one" until he leaves
>
>
> >
> > ganesh
> >
> > There was no hostility towards him. He basically left after a handful
> > of patches he sent were rejected for technical reasons.

The timeline statement is correct. As for hostility, this is incorrect,
even when restricted to public activity on ffmpeg-devel.

But this was not the reason for leaving. The reason for leaving, which I
previously conveyed to Michael privately, is that I lack time for this work
these days.

Put in other words, even if FFmpeg was "perfect" as a community, whatever
that means, I still would have left roughly around this time. Exact timing
was a result of a combination of multiple things that are really irrelevant.

>
> IMHO
> our failure as a community was IIUC that we failed to make him part
> of our team / be more welcoming instead we argued publically if he
> should have a git write account. And we failed to "mentor"/"help"
> him to work on something he liked and we needed. What happened
> was he did good work that was rejected because we kind of didnt
> need/want it.

This mentoring/elaboration of project needs would have been very helpful. I
basically did whatever I wanted to, with limited suggestions from the
community until a few months back, at which time it was too late for me.
IMHO a file with to-do points at least at a high level that most devs agree
upon as being worthy would be useful.

At the moment, even gsoc projects have strong disagreements among the
developers as to their utility.

>
> [...]
>
> --
> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.
> -- Aristotle
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Felt, Patrick]

On 6/4/16, 4:33 AM, "ffmpeg-devel on behalf of Michael Niedermayer" 
 wrote:

>On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 10:30:32AM +0200, Piotr Bandurski wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The problem with this project is that it has not enough active developers. 
>> It looks like most of the devs swiched into "stand-by" mode or something
>> and sadly no new people are joining in to push development forward ;)
>
>There where new developers but i have the feeling many of them where
>treated rather hostile by the community until they decreased activity
>or disappeared examples are lukasz, ganesh and andreas
>but maybe iam misinterpreting things, iam much more a technical guy
>than a sozial one

I’m no star developer by any stretch of the imagination, nor was I treated 
poorly, but..  being a new guy in these parts, having come in right amidst all 
this excitement, has given me pause to question if I just stepped into a crazy 
minefield.

>but i have the hope that with the higherh awareness about hostilities
>we have now and less the CoC (its people not paper that makes a
>difference) this could be prevented and maybe undone in the future.

Personally.  I think this will make a bit of difference for a lot of people if 
it’s made well known.  Perhaps add a link to the ratified COC in the topic in 
the irc channel, and add it as required reading to the mailman subscribe?  (if 
that’s even possible; I’ve never administered mailman before).

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 11:28:03AM -0400, compn wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 13:03:47 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:19:29PM -0400, compn wrote:
> > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:13:09 +0200
> > > Michael Niedermayer  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:32:51PM +0200, Christophe Gisquet
> > > > wrote: i want some assistent to help with dayly server admin
> > > > duties most root admins we have help and contribute but are often
> > > > busy raz recently set up a full backup system for us, someone
> > > > seems helping with security updates as iam not always the first
> > > > doing them (i think its lou but didnt check) and all kinds of
> > > > other things ...
> > > > 
> > > > what would be really nice would be someone who has some time and
> > > > for whom server admining is a fun thing to do,
> > > > someone who would do it "because it needs to be done" would be 2nd
> > > > choice IMHO
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > i am against using github, but am for using vlc admins if we vote
> > > that way.
> > 
> > 
> > What exactly are all these suggestions about ?
> > "Delegate admin tasks to VLC", "using vlc admins", "move to github",
> > ...
> > ?
> > I think this needs to be understood first  ...
> 
> someone thought you did not want to be admin.
> 
> if you are happy to be admin, i am happy :)

iam happy to be admin, i would be more happy if the bulk of the admin
work would be done by someone else :)

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

I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is
to question oneself and others. -- Socrates


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[compn]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 13:03:47 +0200
Michael Niedermayer  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:19:29PM -0400, compn wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:13:09 +0200
> > Michael Niedermayer  wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:32:51PM +0200, Christophe Gisquet
> > > wrote: i want some assistent to help with dayly server admin
> > > duties most root admins we have help and contribute but are often
> > > busy raz recently set up a full backup system for us, someone
> > > seems helping with security updates as iam not always the first
> > > doing them (i think its lou but didnt check) and all kinds of
> > > other things ...
> > > 
> > > what would be really nice would be someone who has some time and
> > > for whom server admining is a fun thing to do,
> > > someone who would do it "because it needs to be done" would be 2nd
> > > choice IMHO
> > > 
> > 
> > i am against using github, but am for using vlc admins if we vote
> > that way.
> 
> 
> What exactly are all these suggestions about ?
> "Delegate admin tasks to VLC", "using vlc admins", "move to github",
> ...
> ?
> I think this needs to be understood first  ...

someone thought you did not want to be admin.

if you are happy to be admin, i am happy :)

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[James Almer]

On 6/4/2016 7:33 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 10:30:32AM +0200, Piotr Bandurski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The problem with this project is that it has not enough active developers. 
>> It looks like most of the devs swiched into "stand-by" mode or something
>> and sadly no new people are joining in to push development forward ;)
> 
> There where new developers but i have the feeling many of them where
> treated rather hostile by the community until they decreased activity
> or disappeared examples are lukasz

I don't know enough about his case aside from i think there being
differences with other devs regarding his GSoC 2015 mentored project
for me to comment.

ganesh

There was no hostility towards him. He basically left after a handful
of patches he sent were rejected for technical reasons.

and andreas

This one i agree with you. While there were some questionable things
from his part (like accidentally breaking git head then trying to
commit a patch that until then was rejected by more than one developer
as condition to get the breakage fixed) there were also some less than
ideal and even uncalled for comments regarding his attempts to fix
issues from other projects by adding workarounds in ours.

> but maybe iam misinterpreting things, iam much more a technical guy
> than a sozial one
> 
> but i have the hope that with the higherh awareness about hostilities
> we have now and less the CoC (its people not paper that makes a
> difference) this could be prevented and maybe undone in the future.

We lost Derek, a good long time developer, and Andreas, our debian
maintainer, in the span of five months more or less for the same
reasons. My hope is, at least as a first step, that those who were
related to both incidents from now on realize how damaging a single or
a chain of even mildly and unnecessarily hostile emails can be.

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:19:29PM -0400, compn wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:13:09 +0200
> Michael Niedermayer  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:32:51PM +0200, Christophe Gisquet wrote:
> > i want some assistent to help with dayly server admin duties
> > most root admins we have help and contribute but are often busy
> > raz recently set up a full backup system for us, someone seems
> > helping with security updates as iam not always the first doing them
> > (i think its lou but didnt check) and all kinds of other things ...
> > 
> > what would be really nice would be someone who has some time and for
> > whom server admining is a fun thing to do,
> > someone who would do it "because it needs to be done" would be 2nd
> > choice IMHO
> > 
> 
> i am against using github, but am for using vlc admins if we vote that
> way.


What exactly are all these suggestions about ?
"Delegate admin tasks to VLC", "using vlc admins", "move to github",
...
?
I think this needs to be understood first  ...


Also what would happen to the other projects hosted at our server ?
FFmpeg is not the only one, and if FFmpeg moves some of it services
to elsewhere while the other projects do not then that means more
work for someone not less. Someone would have to continue maintain the
services for the other projects on our server ...

I think what is needed is simply an assistent, a trustworthy guy or
girl who likes doing sysadmin work and who has done some sysadmin stuff
before. Its not much work as in hours per week but occasionally if
shit happens it can require significant time for a day or two

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

Breaking DRM is a little like attempting to break through a door even
though the window is wide open and the only thing in the house is a bunch
of things you dont want and which you would get tomorrow for free anyway


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 10:30:32AM +0200, Piotr Bandurski wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The problem with this project is that it has not enough active developers. It 
> looks like most of the devs swiched into "stand-by" mode or something
> and sadly no new people are joining in to push development forward ;)

There where new developers but i have the feeling many of them where
treated rather hostile by the community until they decreased activity
or disappeared examples are lukasz, ganesh and andreas
but maybe iam misinterpreting things, iam much more a technical guy
than a sozial one

but i have the hope that with the higherh awareness about hostilities
we have now and less the CoC (its people not paper that makes a
difference) this could be prevented and maybe undone in the future.

-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Rewriting code that is poorly written but fully understood is good.
Rewriting code that one doesnt understand is a sign that one is less smart
then the original author, trying to rewrite it will not make it better.


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Piotr Bandurski]

Hi,

The problem with this project is that it has not enough active developers. It 
looks like most of the devs swiched into "stand-by" mode or something
and sadly no new people are joining in to push development forward ;)

Regards

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[compn]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:13:09 +0200
Michael Niedermayer  wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:32:51PM +0200, Christophe Gisquet wrote:
> i want some assistent to help with dayly server admin duties
> most root admins we have help and contribute but are often busy
> raz recently set up a full backup system for us, someone seems
> helping with security updates as iam not always the first doing them
> (i think its lou but didnt check) and all kinds of other things ...
> 
> what would be really nice would be someone who has some time and for
> whom server admining is a fun thing to do,
> someone who would do it "because it needs to be done" would be 2nd
> choice IMHO
> 

i am against using github, but am for using vlc admins if we vote that
way.

i think i may take back my offer to admin. i was more offering to help
michael with $random admin tasks.

but i dont think i can dedicate much time to it, sorry :(


> 
> [...]
> > SIX)
> > > May 28 19:32:58since cehoyos is here, we could
> > > maybe talk about his behavior and why the CoC and repercussions
> > > for violating it was introduced to begin with May 28 21:51:31
> > >is there anything concrete we’re going to do w.r.t. derek
> > > and carl? May 28 21:59:52So Derek and carl? May
> > > 28 22:26:54 its too late now, and we need to
> > > handle the situation at hand May 28 22:28:24 
> > > nevcairiel, do you want a vote here and now, to what effect? May
> > > 28 22:31:09I agree that a vote on the ML would be better
> > > to give people that fell asleep here the chance to participate
> > > also May 28 22:34:59It's late here. I'm ok for a
> > > vote also, just not sure what kind of offense it would be
> > 
> > And the big, flashy pink, elephant in the room:
> > Action: draft a vote on the repercussions to Carl Eugen Hoyos
> > behaviours (patch submission, general interaction with others)
> > Note, I don't have a strong idea on what it may contain (option of
> > temp/week/perma ban, warning, removal of some rights, etc).
> 
> iam not suggesting anything specific but there is one thing that i
> think i have not seen talked about and that is moderation. Mailman
> supports moderating individual subscribers.
> 
> It might be along the lines of
> If one repeatly and conciously violates the CoC and no real solution
> can be found, he can be given the choice by the mailman admins to
> either promise to attempt not to repeat the violation
> or to be moderated until an event occurs that changes the situation
> or some timeout.
> The insulted person should have the option to veto this at any time so
> if one feels that it wasnt enough to justify the inconvenience the
> "hurt" party should be able to stop this.
> This would have to be combined with something effective for IRC and
> possibly git, in case issues shift there too


i like the idea of moderating certain members, when they start in with
insults. assuming we vote in the CoC...

i personally enjoy free speech to insult everyone but , democracy :P

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[compn]

On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:32:51 +0200
Christophe Gisquet  wrote:


> SIX)
> > May 28 19:32:58since cehoyos is here, we could
> > maybe talk about his behavior and why the CoC and repercussions for
> > violating it was introduced to begin with May 28 21:51:31 
> > is there anything concrete we’re going to do w.r.t. derek and carl?
> > May 28 21:59:52So Derek and carl? May 28 22:26:54
> > its too late now, and we need to handle the
> > situation at hand May 28 22:28:24nevcairiel, do
> > you want a vote here and now, to what effect? May 28 22:31:09
> >I agree that a vote on the ML would be better to give
> > people that fell asleep here the chance to participate also May 28
> > 22:34:59It's late here. I'm ok for a vote also,
> > just not sure what kind of offense it would be
> 
> And the big, flashy pink, elephant in the room:
> Action: draft a vote on the repercussions to Carl Eugen Hoyos
> behaviours (patch submission, general interaction with others)
> Note, I don't have a strong idea on what it may contain (option of
> temp/week/perma ban, warning, removal of some rights, etc).

i am against voting on rules and then retroactively applying them to
anyone.

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Christophe Gisquet]

Hi,

sorry if I'm or was confusing, I'm best-effort here.

2016-06-03 21:13 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> > FOUR.TWO)
[...]
> i want some assistent to help with dayly server admin duties
> most root admins we have help and contribute but are often busy
> raz recently set up a full backup system for us, someone seems
> helping with security updates as iam not always the first doing them
> (i think its lou but didnt check) and all kinds of other things ...
>
> what would be really nice would be someone who has some time and for
> whom server admining is a fun thing to do,
> someone who would do it "because it needs to be done" would be 2nd
> choice IMHO

You are actually replying to FOUR)
This seems to be "ask someone to join in the rotation of tasks",
rather than a full-blown delegation of work. That's an option. I don't
pretend to have correctly worded the action of FOUR)

> iam not suggesting anything specific but there is one thing that i
> think i have not seen talked about and that is moderation. Mailman
> supports moderating individual subscribers.
>
> It might be along the lines of
> If one repeatly and conciously violates the CoC and no real solution
> can be found, he can be given the choice by the mailman admins to
> either promise to attempt not to repeat the violation
> or to be moderated until an event occurs that changes the situation
> or some timeout.
> The insulted person should have the option to veto this at any time so
> if one feels that it wasnt enough to justify the inconvenience the
> "hurt" party should be able to stop this.
> This would have to be combined with something effective for IRC and
> possibly git, in case issues shift there too

You are actually replying to point ONE, more precisely, "how to modify
it" (the CoC).
There are many opinions. I think an amount of time best described by
some aleph can be spent discussing the details, but I bet people are
ok with "use VLC's or whichever, then vote for improvement". You are
proposing an improvement.

The point here is, several people seem to want things to move here
irrespective of ONE, so a vote seems (to me) the natural step forward.
So, either someone acts towards the action, and it may happen, or
clearly, nothing will happen.

I'm resting my opinion that we are putting the cart before the horse,
but I recognize the need from people for action, so I'm ready to vote
on that point, irrespective of ONE. If it happens.

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:32:51PM +0200, Christophe Gisquet wrote:
[...]

> FOUR.TWO)
> > May 28 20:58:44  we probably should config postfix or 
> > spamassasin to check DMARK/DKIM/SPF or part of that on incoming mai (not 
> > really important but i thn it doest curretly)
> 
> Details on what needs to be done, I think this is not high-level
> enough for a vote.
> Action: michaelni to list some wishes?

i want some assistent to help with dayly server admin duties
most root admins we have help and contribute but are often busy
raz recently set up a full backup system for us, someone seems
helping with security updates as iam not always the first doing them
(i think its lou but didnt check) and all kinds of other things ...

what would be really nice would be someone who has some time and for
whom server admining is a fun thing to do,
someone who would do it "because it needs to be done" would be 2nd
choice IMHO


[...]
> SIX)
> > May 28 19:32:58since cehoyos is here, we could maybe talk 
> > about his behavior and why the CoC and repercussions for violating it was 
> > introduced to begin with
> > May 28 21:51:31is there anything concrete we’re going to do w.r.t. 
> > derek and carl?
> > May 28 21:59:52So Derek and carl?
> > May 28 22:26:54 its too late now, and we need to handle the 
> > situation at hand
> > May 28 22:28:24nevcairiel, do you want a vote here and 
> > now, to what effect?
> > May 28 22:31:09I agree that a vote on the ML would be better to 
> > give people that fell asleep here the chance to participate also
> > May 28 22:34:59It's late here. I'm ok for a vote also, 
> > just not sure what kind of offense it would be
> 
> And the big, flashy pink, elephant in the room:
> Action: draft a vote on the repercussions to Carl Eugen Hoyos
> behaviours (patch submission, general interaction with others)
> Note, I don't have a strong idea on what it may contain (option of
> temp/week/perma ban, warning, removal of some rights, etc).

iam not suggesting anything specific but there is one thing that i
think i have not seen talked about and that is moderation. Mailman
supports moderating individual subscribers.

It might be along the lines of
If one repeatly and conciously violates the CoC and no real solution
can be found, he can be given the choice by the mailman admins to
either promise to attempt not to repeat the violation
or to be moderated until an event occurs that changes the situation
or some timeout.
The insulted person should have the option to veto this at any time so
if one feels that it wasnt enough to justify the inconvenience the
"hurt" party should be able to stop this.
This would have to be combined with something effective for IRC and
possibly git, in case issues shift there too


[...]

-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a
revolutionary act. -- George Orwell


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Christophe Gisquet]

Hi,

here's I think a list of things left to do. I remember saste doing it
on some occasions.

Please comment on whether you think I have pointed an actual action to
perform. Don't mind the details for now, it's just to get the train
going.

2016-05-30 10:49 GMT+02:00 Michael Niedermayer :


ONE)
> May 28 19:07:54https://wiki.videolan.org/Code_of_Conduct/
[...]
> May 28 19:29:06   so lets add that to current CoC and put it 
> for vote on ML?

Action: put to vote the addition of the "repercussions" from the linked page.

There was some discussion as how to modify it. Whether to accept as
is, or delay for additions can be included in the vote, IMO:
> May 28 19:29:40durandal_1707: send a draft first and get 
> comments to improve it



TWO)
> May 28 19:38:00  AVClass & AVOption should be added to all 
> public "Context" structs for API consistency and to make it easier for apps 
> to support multiple ffmpeg versios and distros

Action: put to vote (vote ongoing).



THREE)
> May 28 20:21:19liabvutil is currently the only non modular 
> library. literally everything is compiled and installed no matter your 
> configure options
[...]
> May 28 20:31:19Err what's the result on the previous topic? 
> Send patches and it'll get reviewed but the end goal is ok? (I don't mind)
> May 28 20:31:47kurosu_: sounds like it yes

Action: whoever is interested will submit patches, with the idea that
the end goal is worth reaching.


FOUR)
> May 28 20:32:54 that's the other issue; we don't really have 
> someone to handle the sysadmin stuff
> May 28 20:35:58 i feel like we really need someone to 
> officially handle the sysadmin stuff
> May 28 20:33:14 does anyone have a sysadmin in his 
> relationships that would be interested in that?
> May 28 20:34:09  we have a virtual box in bulgaria that ffbox0 
> could be moved to if teres a volunteer
> May 28 20:52:40VLC have offered to sysadmin for years
> May 28 20:55:01  i put it on the table, my offer to admin again
> May 28 21:22:30  iive: makes a good suggestion, GitHub would release 
> at least two services (git and trac). For trac to GitHub you could look at 
> something like: https://github.com/trustmaster/trac2github It also might make 
> the project more accessible to new contributors

Action: decide how and who performs admin tasks.
I think the above lists the possible options in a vote:
- Compn as admin
- Delegate admin tasks to VLC (seemed related to hosting too)
- Draft a request for admins to be circulated
- Move stuff to bulgaria
- Move stuff to github


FOUR.TWO)
> May 28 20:58:44  we probably should config postfix or 
> spamassasin to check DMARK/DKIM/SPF or part of that on incoming mai (not 
> really important but i thn it doest curretly)

Details on what needs to be done, I think this is not high-level
enough for a vote.
Action: michaelni to list some wishes?



FIVE)
> May 28 21:28:47   i want possibility to fund devs to work on 
> specific part of FFmpeg
> May 28 21:28:59   what happened with FFmtech?
> May 28 21:29:38  at the moment we have a total of ~15K USD in the SPI 
> and ffis.de funds
> May 28 21:30:58  saste, can we fund someone maybe to make 
> kierans fuzzing GSoC project a reality ? i mean if people agree to that
> May 28 21:31:59   so just need to pick some part of codebase 
> that need refactoring/cleaning up/improving?
> May 28 21:59:08Kierank mentioned btw he was willing to fund 
> some work on libavfilter API that would suit his needs, the details of which 
> he'll give to whomever is integrated

Action: list the sponsoring opportunities for work on ffmpeg: tasks
and origin of funds?
Subpoints:
- better lavfi API for some usecases
- find whether SPI/... can be used for that



SIX)
> May 28 19:32:58since cehoyos is here, we could maybe talk 
> about his behavior and why the CoC and repercussions for violating it was 
> introduced to begin with
> May 28 21:51:31is there anything concrete we’re going to do w.r.t. 
> derek and carl?
> May 28 21:59:52So Derek and carl?
> May 28 22:26:54 its too late now, and we need to handle the 
> situation at hand
> May 28 22:28:24nevcairiel, do you want a vote here and now, 
> to what effect?
> May 28 22:31:09I agree that a vote on the ML would be better to give 
> people that fell asleep here the chance to participate also
> May 28 22:34:59It's late here. I'm ok for a vote also, just 
> not sure what kind of offense it would be

And the big, flashy pink, elephant in the room:
Action: draft a vote on the repercussions to Carl Eugen Hoyos
behaviours (patch submission, general interaction with others)
Note, I don't have a strong idea on what it may contain (option of
temp/week/perma ban, warning, removal of some rights, etc).

If someone is interested in this, maybe listing all potential options
and use Condorcet etc.

I don't really care, the above just says: 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 02:11:12AM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 09:11:38PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Sat, 28 May 2016, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > 
> > >On date Saturday 2016-05-28 18:57:00 +0200, Paul B Mahol encoded:
> > >>On 5/28/16, Clement Boesch  wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> >  Hi,
> > 
> >  I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
> >  the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
> >  UTC 17.
> > 
> > >>>
> > >>> So I suppose this happens in about half an hour. Can you remind us the
> > >>> IRC channel?
> > >>
> > >
> > >>It could be #ffmpeg-devel or any other channel.
> > >
> > >The FFmpeg IRC meeting will start soon (17:15 UTC) on the
> > >#ffmpeg-meeting2016 channel.
> > 
> > Will somebody submit the log to the trac wiki?
> 
> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/FFmeeting/2016-05

also posting it here as saste asked in the meeting for it to be posted
to teh ML 

 BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat May 28 18:51:04 2016

May 28 18:51:04 *   Now talking on #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:51:21 *   durandal_1707 (~duran...@m83-184-22-75.cust.tele2.hr) 
has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:51:34 *   jamrial (~jamrial@181.22.62.26) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:51:49 *   durandal_170 gives channel operator status to 
durandal_1707
May 28 18:52:22 *   BBB (~rbultje@65.206.95.146) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:52:48 *   mateo` (~ma...@static-5-51-29-67.ftth.abo.bbox.fr) has 
joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:53:35 *   cehoyos (~ceho...@80-110-89-243.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at) 
has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:53:36 *   ubitux (~ubi...@bre75-1-78-192-242-8.fbxo.proxad.net) 
has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:54:55 *   c_14 (~c_14@unaffiliated/c-14/x-8913907) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:55:10 *   saste (~saste___@151.56.85.76) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:57:41 *   kurosu_ (020d4d7f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.2.13.77.127) 
has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:58:06 *   iive (~iive@unaffiliated/iive) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:59:53 *   nevcairiel (nev@WoWUIDev/WoWAce/Ace3/nevcairiel) has 
joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:00:24   we will start at at 17:15 UTC
May 28 19:03:11 *   Timothy_Gu (~timothy_g@wikipedia/timothy-gu) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:03:45 *   kurosu (020d4d7f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.2.13.77.127) 
has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:03:48 *   j-b (~jb@videolan/developer/j-b) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:04:09 *   kurosu_ has quit ()
May 28 19:04:43   so lets start
May 28 19:04:46   first topic: Code of Conduct and policy around 
it
May 28 19:04:52yes
May 28 19:05:29the "first version" was voted and commited, so 
that's done
May 28 19:06:01   michaelni commited first version, should it be 
extended and other stuff added to it?
May 28 19:06:09 I still maintain that some solid repercussions 
should be specified in the CoC. The ML root idea is good, but it should be 
written as a reference for future.
May 28 19:06:27the VLC one is useful for reference
May 28 19:06:56 We don't have to go as solid as "this --> 1 day 
ban; that --> 2-day ban" but it should be clear what could happen
May 28 19:06:56atomnuker was against adding that, afaik
May 28 19:07:19i also think it should be added
May 28 19:07:32BBB where's vlc's?
May 28 19:07:54https://wiki.videolan.org/Code_of_Conduct/
May 28 19:09:30 This clause doesn't go against the assumption 
of good faith, as atomnuker seems to suggest. It's more for the clarity of the 
entire community, to show that our community is a mature one governed by a set 
of clear rules.
May 28 19:09:51 I'm also for adding some - in spite of the 
issues that were raised
May 28 19:10:29   like one VLC have or more rigid?
May 28 19:11:27  I dislike the notion that very well defined 
rules and (especially ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES) are needed to maintain order or 
say a community is "mature"
May 28 19:11:41 *   DSM_ (~textual@150.129.198.154) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:12:10 we would all be happy if its never invoked, but 
alas we're here because precedence exists that we need it
May 28 19:12:15  I think that defining some rules is okay, as 
long as they're not set in stone and are debateable
May 28 19:12:25   nevcairiel: and what is that precedence?
May 28 19:12:29atomnuker: “NB: Before applying any of those following 
disciplinary policies, the VideoLAN team will try to discuss the problem with 
the offender in order to solve it in a more peaceful way.”
May 28 19:12:39atomnuker: from the VLC CoC “disciplinary actions"
May 28 19:12:49  yeah, that's okay
May 28 19:12:50 VLC's, in my interpretation, is for issues 
caused by situations going out of control, 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 09:11:38PM +0200, Marton Balint wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 28 May 2016, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> 
> >On date Saturday 2016-05-28 18:57:00 +0200, Paul B Mahol encoded:
> >>On 5/28/16, Clement Boesch  wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>  Hi,
> 
>  I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
>  the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
>  UTC 17.
> 
> >>>
> >>> So I suppose this happens in about half an hour. Can you remind us the
> >>> IRC channel?
> >>
> >
> >>It could be #ffmpeg-devel or any other channel.
> >
> >The FFmpeg IRC meeting will start soon (17:15 UTC) on the
> >#ffmpeg-meeting2016 channel.
> 
> Will somebody submit the log to the trac wiki?

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/FFmeeting/2016-05

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

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
-- Diogenes of Sinope


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Marton Balint]

On Sat, 28 May 2016, Stefano Sabatini wrote:


On date Saturday 2016-05-28 18:57:00 +0200, Paul B Mahol encoded:

On 5/28/16, Clement Boesch  wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
>> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
>> UTC 17.
>>
>
> So I suppose this happens in about half an hour. Can you remind us the
> IRC channel?




It could be #ffmpeg-devel or any other channel.


The FFmpeg IRC meeting will start soon (17:15 UTC) on the
#ffmpeg-meeting2016 channel.


Will somebody submit the log to the trac wiki?

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Saturday 2016-05-28 18:57:00 +0200, Paul B Mahol encoded:
> On 5/28/16, Clement Boesch  wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
> >> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
> >> UTC 17.
> >>
> >
> > So I suppose this happens in about half an hour. Can you remind us the
> > IRC channel?
> 

> It could be #ffmpeg-devel or any other channel.

The FFmpeg IRC meeting will start soon (17:15 UTC) on the
#ffmpeg-meeting2016 channel.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Paul B Mahol]

On 5/28/16, Clement Boesch  wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
>> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
>> UTC 17.
>>
>
> So I suppose this happens in about half an hour. Can you remind us the
> IRC channel?

It could be #ffmpeg-devel or any other channel.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Clément Bœsch]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
> UTC 17.
> 

So I suppose this happens in about half an hour. Can you remind us the
IRC channel?

-- 
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] IRC meeting

[Kieran Kunhya]

On Fri, 27 May 2016 at 15:42 Stefano Sabatini  wrote:

> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:00 AM, James Almer  wrote:
> [...]
>
> > If not enough people are present no decisions will be made. Worst case
> > scenario,
> > nothing is discussed either and the meeting is re-scheduled in the hopes
> > people
> > actually confirm their presence this time around.
> >
> > In any case, we still have two days so confirmations from those that
> > haven't yet
> > done it are very welcome.
> >
>
> I will attend.
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel


I will not attend

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Stefano Sabatini]

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:00 AM, James Almer  wrote:
[...]

> If not enough people are present no decisions will be made. Worst case
> scenario,
> nothing is discussed either and the meeting is re-scheduled in the hopes
> people
> actually confirm their presence this time around.
>
> In any case, we still have two days so confirmations from those that
> haven't yet
> done it are very welcome.
>

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 7:00 PM, James Almer  wrote:

> On 5/26/2016 7:56 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Paul B Mahol  wrote:
> >> On 5/26/16, James Almer  wrote:
> >>> On 5/18/2016 5:33 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>  Hi,
> 
>  I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
>  the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
>  UTC 17.
> 
>  Candidate topics of the day:
>   - Code of Conduct and policy around it
>   - technical development issues
>   - misc topics
> 
>  Feel free to propose other topics.
> 
>  Best regards.
> >>>
> >>> This has gotten Clement's explicit confirmation and Michael's implicit
> >>> after eight days. With mine now that'd be three.
> >>> We're only two days away from the proposed date. If nobody else
> confirms,
> >>> maybe we should postpone it while we poke more people to confirm their
> >>> participation?
> >>
> >> I do not think that is valid reason to postpone, if anybody wants to
> >> join he/she will join.
> >
> > Holding a meeting where noone is present is also not really a valid
> strategy.
> >
> > - Hendrik
>
> If not enough people are present no decisions will be made. Worst case
> scenario,
> nothing is discussed either and the meeting is re-scheduled in the hopes
> people
> actually confirm their presence this time around.
>
> In any case, we still have two days so confirmations from those that
> haven't yet
> done it are very welcome.


I will attend.

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[James Almer]

On 5/26/2016 7:56 PM, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Paul B Mahol  wrote:
>> On 5/26/16, James Almer  wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2016 5:33 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
 Hi,

 I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
 the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
 UTC 17.

 Candidate topics of the day:
  - Code of Conduct and policy around it
  - technical development issues
  - misc topics

 Feel free to propose other topics.

 Best regards.
>>>
>>> This has gotten Clement's explicit confirmation and Michael's implicit
>>> after eight days. With mine now that'd be three.
>>> We're only two days away from the proposed date. If nobody else confirms,
>>> maybe we should postpone it while we poke more people to confirm their
>>> participation?
>>
>> I do not think that is valid reason to postpone, if anybody wants to
>> join he/she will join.
> 
> Holding a meeting where noone is present is also not really a valid strategy.
> 
> - Hendrik

If not enough people are present no decisions will be made. Worst case scenario,
nothing is discussed either and the meeting is re-scheduled in the hopes people
actually confirm their presence this time around.

In any case, we still have two days so confirmations from those that haven't yet
done it are very welcome.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 10:48 PM, Paul B Mahol  wrote:
> On 5/26/16, James Almer  wrote:
>> On 5/18/2016 5:33 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
>>> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
>>> UTC 17.
>>>
>>> Candidate topics of the day:
>>>  - Code of Conduct and policy around it
>>>  - technical development issues
>>>  - misc topics
>>>
>>> Feel free to propose other topics.
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>
>> This has gotten Clement's explicit confirmation and Michael's implicit
>> after eight days. With mine now that'd be three.
>> We're only two days away from the proposed date. If nobody else confirms,
>> maybe we should postpone it while we poke more people to confirm their
>> participation?
>
> I do not think that is valid reason to postpone, if anybody wants to
> join he/she will join.

Holding a meeting where noone is present is also not really a valid strategy.

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Paul B Mahol]

On 5/26/16, Lou Logan  wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, James Almer wrote:
>>
>> This has gotten Clement's explicit confirmation and Michael's implicit
>> after eight days. With mine now that'd be three.
>> We're only two days away from the proposed date. If nobody else confirms,
>> maybe we should postpone it while we poke more people to confirm their
>> participation?
>
> I won't be able to make it on Saturday (I'm going on a kayak fishing
> trip). If it is rescheduled I will try to attend, but feel free to hold
> the meeting on Saturday without me if you decided to stay on schedule.

You could told that immediately, it would be rescheduled, now is too late IMHO.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Paul B Mahol]

On 5/26/16, James Almer  wrote:
> On 5/18/2016 5:33 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
>> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
>> UTC 17.
>>
>> Candidate topics of the day:
>>  - Code of Conduct and policy around it
>>  - technical development issues
>>  - misc topics
>>
>> Feel free to propose other topics.
>>
>> Best regards.
>
> This has gotten Clement's explicit confirmation and Michael's implicit
> after eight days. With mine now that'd be three.
> We're only two days away from the proposed date. If nobody else confirms,
> maybe we should postpone it while we poke more people to confirm their
> participation?

I do not think that is valid reason to postpone, if anybody wants to
join he/she will join.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Lou Logan]

On Thu, May 26, 2016, at 12:43 PM, James Almer wrote:
>
> This has gotten Clement's explicit confirmation and Michael's implicit
> after eight days. With mine now that'd be three.
> We're only two days away from the proposed date. If nobody else confirms,
> maybe we should postpone it while we poke more people to confirm their
> participation?

I won't be able to make it on Saturday (I'm going on a kayak fishing
trip). If it is rescheduled I will try to attend, but feel free to hold
the meeting on Saturday without me if you decided to stay on schedule.

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[James Almer]

On 5/18/2016 5:33 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
> UTC 17.
> 
> Candidate topics of the day:
>  - Code of Conduct and policy around it
>  - technical development issues
>  - misc topics
> 
> Feel free to propose other topics.
> 
> Best regards.

This has gotten Clement's explicit confirmation and Michael's implicit
after eight days. With mine now that'd be three.
We're only two days away from the proposed date. If nobody else confirms,
maybe we should postpone it while we poke more people to confirm their
participation?
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Clément Bœsch]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
> UTC 17.
> 
> Candidate topics of the day:
>  - Code of Conduct and policy around it
>  - technical development issues
>  - misc topics
> 

Sure, fine with me.

Might want to add infrastructure (the conclusion will likely be that we
lack someone to handle it though)

-- 
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] IRC meeting

[Paul B Mahol]

On 5/19/16, Michael Niedermayer  wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
>> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
>> UTC 17.
>>
>> Candidate topics of the day:
>
>>  - Code of Conduct and policy around it
>
> does this affect the current vote ?
> i mean should we set the end date for the current vote before the
> meeting to have some agreed basis to start from OR
> should we wait for the meeting first, which could cause
> delays in having any CoC, if we restart the process and do more rounds
> of changes and comments, each requiring to wait to give people time
> to comment before a final vote
> what do people prefer ?

This one is more about what if Code of Conduct is violated and actions
to be taken after that.
Until now there where no rules at all and everyone could do anything
if he/she wanted and where virtually no consequences if one did permanent
damage to the project.

>
>
>>  - technical development issues
>>  - misc topics
>>
>> Feel free to propose other topics.
>
> Iam not sure but
> Ideas about encouraging people to work on bugs and especially
> regressions.
>
> FFmpeg funding/donations, whats the current status, can we fund some
> developers to do important work, and if needed ideas to increase funds
> & donations (i think its needed)

That one is interesting to have.

>
> AVClass, I need to know if [3.1 - 4.0[ should have a AVClass in
> AVCodecParameters or not, as its a question that must be awnsered
> before the next release and cant be added afterwards

IIRC some devs appears to be against it?
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:33:23PM +0200, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting on
> the Saturday of the next week, Saturday May 28,
> UTC 17.
> 
> Candidate topics of the day:

>  - Code of Conduct and policy around it

does this affect the current vote ?
i mean should we set the end date for the current vote before the
meeting to have some agreed basis to start from OR
should we wait for the meeting first, which could cause
delays in having any CoC, if we restart the process and do more rounds
of changes and comments, each requiring to wait to give people time
to comment before a final vote
what do people prefer ?


>  - technical development issues
>  - misc topics
> 
> Feel free to propose other topics.

Iam not sure but
Ideas about encouraging people to work on bugs and especially
regressions.

FFmpeg funding/donations, whats the current status, can we fund some
developers to do important work, and if needed ideas to increase funds
& donations (i think its needed)

AVClass, I need to know if [3.1 - 4.0[ should have a AVClass in
AVCodecParameters or not, as its a question that must be awnsered
before the next release and cant be added afterwards


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

Let us carefully observe those good qualities wherein our enemies excel us
and endeavor to excel them, by avoiding what is faulty, and imitating what
is excellent in them. -- Plutarch


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting summary for Outeachy Fundraising (Item No.5)

[Yayoi Ukai]

Hi Ngassa,

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Ngassa Finjap  wrote:
> Hi Yayoi,
>
> Thank you for writing a summary of the IRC Meeting which took place
> yesterday regarding the upcoming Outreachy program. Yaaay! ^_^ [ Sadness
> levels drop. ]

I am glad to hear that.
>
> IMHO, It's fine leaving discussions concerning Outreachy on this mailing
> list since it also concerns development of FFmpeg. Please continue to keep
> the community informed on upcoming Outreachy meetings on IRC as you've
> always done. :)

Not really... but I will definitely keep informing upcoming Outreachy
things for the
best of my knowledge!  I think next stuff will be news update.
(last years Outreachy summary etc..)


>
> Best of luck with Outreachy Organization.

Thank you!
-Yayoi


>
> Regards,
> Ngassa Amalia.
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 6:10 AM Yayoi Ukai  wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Here is the meeting summary for yesterday meeting (Item No.5 about
>> Outreachy).
>> I also added possible future agenda. And please let me know if you
>> have any questions. Also, I will probably start a separate mailing
>> list for just regarding outreachy related issues, unless I should keep
>> writing here. So please let me know if you want to subscribe or I
>> should just keep writing it here.
>>
>> But in any cases, if you are very sad that you missed the meeting and
>> especially about the discussion item No.5 of yesterday's meeting,
>> Here is the summary. (So you know what happened in this topic at
>> least! So don't be sad! Also, you can read the log as well) Please let
>> me know that if you want to help, or you want to know what's going on
>> more!
>>
>> Also,
>>
>> Meeting Summary:
>> (Start of the summary)
>>
>> Action Items:
>>
>> 1. FFmpeg will participate Outreachy
>>
>> 2. FFmpeg has a money to support intern but prefer to raise funds
>>
>> 3. Micheal will be a mentor (tentative). Developers will discuss the
>> idea of the project and will be determined. (possibly more mentor
>> candidates and Mentors need to commit 5 hours a week during the
>> internship period.)
>>
>> 4. Lou will review the email template that Yayoi wrote last week and will
>> be
>> decided on the final template
>>
>> 5. Yayoi will ask to Outreach Organizer about the deadline for the
>> Ffmpeg participation
>>
>> 6. Yayoi will start emailing to companies once we are set on email template
>>
>> Other Topics:
>>
>> 1. Micheal and Stafano oversees Outreachy budget and continue to be so.
>>
>> 2. Yayoi's logistical question about fundraising will be answered
>> separately
>>
>> (End of Summary)
>>
>> Future agenda (Suggestion):
>>
>> 1. Candidate recruiting
>>
>> 2. Mentor/Intern happiness
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Yayoi
>> ___
>> 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
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting summary for Outeachy Fundraising (Item No.5)

[Yayoi Ukai]

I missed a very very important point from the summary I wrote.

Action Item:

Raynald: He will write a news entry about last Outreachy project.
Also, thanking Samsung to fund
at least two interns in the past rounds. THANK YOU SAMSUNG!

I am terribly sorry for missing this!! I was super nervous on IRC meeting.

Also, please let me know if I missed something else or any comments.

Cheers,
Yayoi




On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 10:33 PM, Ngassa Finjap  wrote:
> Hi Yayoi,
>
> Thank you for writing a summary of the IRC Meeting which took place
> yesterday regarding the upcoming Outreachy program. Yaaay! ^_^ [ Sadness
> levels drop. ]
>
> IMHO, It's fine leaving discussions concerning Outreachy on this mailing
> list since it also concerns development of FFmpeg. Please continue to keep
> the community informed on upcoming Outreachy meetings on IRC as you've
> always done. :)
>
> Best of luck with Outreachy Organization.
>
> Regards,
> Ngassa Amalia.
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 6:10 AM Yayoi Ukai  wrote:
>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> Here is the meeting summary for yesterday meeting (Item No.5 about
>> Outreachy).
>> I also added possible future agenda. And please let me know if you
>> have any questions. Also, I will probably start a separate mailing
>> list for just regarding outreachy related issues, unless I should keep
>> writing here. So please let me know if you want to subscribe or I
>> should just keep writing it here.
>>
>> But in any cases, if you are very sad that you missed the meeting and
>> especially about the discussion item No.5 of yesterday's meeting,
>> Here is the summary. (So you know what happened in this topic at
>> least! So don't be sad! Also, you can read the log as well) Please let
>> me know that if you want to help, or you want to know what's going on
>> more!
>>
>> Also,
>>
>> Meeting Summary:
>> (Start of the summary)
>>
>> Action Items:
>>
>> 1. FFmpeg will participate Outreachy
>>
>> 2. FFmpeg has a money to support intern but prefer to raise funds
>>
>> 3. Micheal will be a mentor (tentative). Developers will discuss the
>> idea of the project and will be determined. (possibly more mentor
>> candidates and Mentors need to commit 5 hours a week during the
>> internship period.)
>>
>> 4. Lou will review the email template that Yayoi wrote last week and will
>> be
>> decided on the final template
>>
>> 5. Yayoi will ask to Outreach Organizer about the deadline for the
>> Ffmpeg participation
>>
>> 6. Yayoi will start emailing to companies once we are set on email template
>>
>> Other Topics:
>>
>> 1. Micheal and Stafano oversees Outreachy budget and continue to be so.
>>
>> 2. Yayoi's logistical question about fundraising will be answered
>> separately
>>
>> (End of Summary)
>>
>> Future agenda (Suggestion):
>>
>> 1. Candidate recruiting
>>
>> 2. Mentor/Intern happiness
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Yayoi
>> ___
>> 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
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting summary for Outeachy Fundraising (Item No.5)

[Ngassa Finjap]

Hi Yayoi,

Thank you for writing a summary of the IRC Meeting which took place
yesterday regarding the upcoming Outreachy program. Yaaay! ^_^ [ Sadness
levels drop. ]

IMHO, It's fine leaving discussions concerning Outreachy on this mailing
list since it also concerns development of FFmpeg. Please continue to keep
the community informed on upcoming Outreachy meetings on IRC as you've
always done. :)

Best of luck with Outreachy Organization.

Regards,
Ngassa Amalia.

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, 6:10 AM Yayoi Ukai  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> Here is the meeting summary for yesterday meeting (Item No.5 about
> Outreachy).
> I also added possible future agenda. And please let me know if you
> have any questions. Also, I will probably start a separate mailing
> list for just regarding outreachy related issues, unless I should keep
> writing here. So please let me know if you want to subscribe or I
> should just keep writing it here.
>
> But in any cases, if you are very sad that you missed the meeting and
> especially about the discussion item No.5 of yesterday's meeting,
> Here is the summary. (So you know what happened in this topic at
> least! So don't be sad! Also, you can read the log as well) Please let
> me know that if you want to help, or you want to know what's going on
> more!
>
> Also,
>
> Meeting Summary:
> (Start of the summary)
>
> Action Items:
>
> 1. FFmpeg will participate Outreachy
>
> 2. FFmpeg has a money to support intern but prefer to raise funds
>
> 3. Micheal will be a mentor (tentative). Developers will discuss the
> idea of the project and will be determined. (possibly more mentor
> candidates and Mentors need to commit 5 hours a week during the
> internship period.)
>
> 4. Lou will review the email template that Yayoi wrote last week and will
> be
> decided on the final template
>
> 5. Yayoi will ask to Outreach Organizer about the deadline for the
> Ffmpeg participation
>
> 6. Yayoi will start emailing to companies once we are set on email template
>
> Other Topics:
>
> 1. Micheal and Stafano oversees Outreachy budget and continue to be so.
>
> 2. Yayoi's logistical question about fundraising will be answered
> separately
>
> (End of Summary)
>
> Future agenda (Suggestion):
>
> 1. Candidate recruiting
>
> 2. Mentor/Intern happiness
>
> Cheers,
>
> Yayoi
> ___
> 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] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Saturday 2015-09-12 16:13:53 +0200, Stefano Sabatini encoded:
> On date Monday 2015-09-07 11:37:47 +0200, Stefano Sabatini encoded:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> > propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> > different time if this can't suit you.
> > 
> > The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> > at the end of the meeting.
> > 
> > This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> > that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> > (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> > developers who will attend it.
[...]
> The meeting will start in less than one hour at 15 UTC.
> 
> To attend the meeting join the #ffmpeg-meeting channel on freenode.
> 
> Updated topics of the day:
> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> 2. general policy decision process
> 3. VDD15
> 4. Any other business
> 5. Outreachy funding for the next round (winter 2015)
> 6. use of Github/Gitorious for pull requests
> 7. Any other business
> 
> *IMPORTANT NOTE*: the meeting channel is public and the log will be
> published after the meeting.

IRC meeting log is in attachment.

Thanks all for attending the meeting.
-- 
FFmpeg = Frenzy and Fierce Multimedia Programmable Elegant Gospel
FFmpeg IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, 15 UTC

Topics of the day:

1. ABI compatibility policy
2. general policy decision process
3. VDD15
4. Outreachy funding for the next round (winter 2015)
5. use of Github/Gitorious for pull requests
6. Any other business

Sep 12 17:00:59  allright time to go
Sep 12 17:01:18  i summoned this meeting to discuss some relevant topics
Sep 12 17:01:27 *   Shiz (~s...@hydrogenium.shiz.me) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:01:49  this is also meant as a sort of preparatory meeting for 
the real-life meeting which will be held in paris the next weekend
Sep 12 17:02:07  you can see in the topics the pastebin containing the 
topics of the day to discuss
Sep 12 17:02:22  http://pastebin.com/e6Q0pY6Z
Sep 12 17:02:29  first topic is
Sep 12 17:02:41  ABI compatibility policy
Sep 12 17:03:25  please note that i just compiled the list of topics but 
i'm not very involved with ffmpeg development, so don't expect me to chat a lot 
about the merit of each topic
Sep 12 17:03:32so are we going to just do a vote on that? or do you 
want to re-discuss it also?
Sep 12 17:03:50  wasn't wm4 the person who proposed it in the 
first place? where is he?
Sep 12 17:03:54  I don't know, maybe someone can spend a few words 
describing the proposed options
Sep 12 17:04:02(there was a long … “discussion” :) … on the 
mailinglist already on the abi compat subject, and it’s fair to say that we 
disagreed)
Sep 12 17:04:13 well the options are pretty simple, do or don't
Sep 12 17:04:23  then we can delay the voting to any other means, not 
necessarily we have to decide/vote right now
Sep 12 17:04:39 nevcairiel: indeed, that is the root 
alternative; there are a few subquestions after this is decided.
Sep 12 17:04:50 atomnuker: wm4 kind of ragequited irc because 
it wasn't going fast enough apparently; try to /invite him
Sep 12 17:05:06 do we spent effort to maintain the ABI compat, 
which in itself is not and cannot really be fully tested due to mis-matching 
behavior, or well, do we simply not
Sep 12 17:05:13  I'll ping him on ffmpeg-devel, that should get 
his attention
Sep 12 17:05:50 we probably need to agree about how we 
"advertise" the policy
Sep 12 17:06:02 be it a news, or a dedicated pages to "current 
goals"
Sep 12 17:06:18 just to ease taking decisions and keeping up 
with them
Sep 12 17:06:23so the discussion was more about how it was advertised 
or “how the patch was concealing its purpose”, right?
Sep 12 17:07:12 *   Easyfab (~chatzi...@ip-62-241-112-16.evc.net) has 
joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:07:21 *   Easyfab (~chatzi...@ip-62-241-112-16.evc.net) has left 
#ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:07:23 BBB: from my PoV, right; I have mixed opinions 
on the decision itself.
Sep 12 17:07:31who was actually advocating _for_ keeping the abi 
compat options (as opposed to the discussion around it being concealed)?
Sep 12 17:07:47 I don't think anyone was directly for keeping it
Sep 12 17:07:48 *   Easyfab (~chatzi...@ip-62-241-112-16.evc.net) has 
joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:08:18 The discussion mostly went in circles around 
the policy issue
Sep 12 17:08:24 *   llogan2 (lou@2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe70:2ed2) has joined 
#ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:08:50right, I’m re-reading it now
Sep 12 17:09:14carl eugen and nicolas george didn’t like us removing 
it without an explicit, dedicated discussion that allows us to decide whether 
we want to change policy on abi compat or not
Sep 12 17:09:17so …
Sep 12 17:09:36cehoyos isn’t here, is he?
Sep 12 17:09:45 dont think so
Sep 12 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Yayoi Ukai]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Michael Niedermayer  wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
>> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
>> different time if this can't suit you.
>>
>> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
>> at the end of the meeting.
>>
>> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
>> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
>> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
>> developers who will attend it.
>>
>> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
>> 1. ABI compatibility policy
>
>> 2. general policy decision process
>
> heres a suggestion, maybe useful as input for discussions on
> Saturday ...
>
> FFmpeg used and uses "unanimous consent" in patch reviews
> any person could make a suggestion
> to improve a patch and it has to be taken care of one way or another
> before the patch is ok. This system worked quite well almost all the
> time. So i would suggest to use the same / a similar system for
> policy decisions
>
> * Everyone should be able to comment and propose options/choices
> * There should be enough time to understand, discuss and amend
>   proposals
> * People should try to understand the other people and avoid strawman
>   arguments and other non constructive discussion tactics, people/the
>   commuity should step in if discussions become non constructive and
>   hostile and try to get people back toward constructive discussion.
> * People should be able to declare reservations to a proposal without
>   blocking the proposal and as a seperate choice veto it in a blocking
>   fashion. A veto should be public with full name of the developer,
>   reason why it is bad for the community/project and ideally a
>   alternative proposal. Also developers vetoing a proposal must be
>   willing and able to work on finding an better solution.

So you can add a deadline for the alternate proposal. For example,
if the person who vetoed doesn't come up with an alternate proposal
within 30 days,
the original proposal must be passed.

> * The authors of proposals should try to amend proposals based on
>   raised issues & reservations and restart the process if changes
>   where made. There could be a maximum number of such restarts after
>   which only vetos would block
>
> If this doesnt work due to too many vetos then it could be adjusted
> to require 2 or more vetos to reject a proposal, but IMHO i dont think
> this would be needed. Simply having ones full name in public with a
> veto should result in people using the veto right wisely.
>
> A "unanimous consent" system also should push toward cooperation
> and discussions intended to find compromises and understanding the
> others. Because simply trying to be loud and push and troll are
> unlikely effective means to find an agreement. also such a system, if
> it works, would ensure noones oppinion or suggestion is just pushed
> aside
>
> [...]
> --
> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct answer.
>
> ___
> 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] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Yayoi Ukai]

FYI: Here is my experience with Python.org

Step 1: If it the decision is not so important (simple patch etc.) and
if 3 reviewers say yes, it will be merged.
Also, it seems there are no maintainers for specific parts of the
code, but instead they have "reviewers" and only
reviewers can review the patch. And once they approved the patch, the
patch will be submitted automated system
and "reviewers" do not merge the patch by themselves.

Step 2:
If it is decided that the patch or change is worthy of escalation, it
will be reviewed by more people. (I recall 6 but I am not sure)
and they vote. (I am not sure which condition justify escalation.)

Then, they will repeat the voting and escalation process and the final
decision is made by a vote
of  the "committee" (majority rules, I am also not sure how they
choose the committee etc.
the python.org person might have told me but I don't remember..)



I got really confused when I first came to FFmpeg. I thought it would
be very similar to Python,
and I didn't know that an Open Source Free Software Project could be
run so dramatically different..
but it made sense though.
and I see a lot of good things about the existing FFmpeg system too..



I think deciding point would be.. (I am just summarizing what is
discussed so far.)

- Deciding what events or arguments can causes/trigger the escalation.
(I guess it means when do you need more than arguing over the email?)

- Once it is decided to be escalated/vote, how the vote leads to the
decisions. (majority rules or veto rules?)
(and who qualifies to vote for after escalation?) (Well, basically
current patch review is
everyone votes right?)

- Well, you can always try one and you can come back later to see how
well it is working.
(you need to test any system so...and there will be one problem in one
system and the other (oh democracy..).. so..
You can see how happy you are and come back next year..or next time.
now your guys are leaderless by the leader's own decision and your
guys are pretty okay.. so i think
you are fine. :)  )

-- 

--


On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Ronald S. Bultje  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Nicolas George  wrote:
>
>> Le quintidi 25 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
>> > I have a few problems with using the UN security council as
>> > comparission
>>
> [..]
>
>> The project needs a way of making a decision when people do not agree.
>
>
> +1, that's exactly what I meant.
>
> (Thank you for putting it into words.)
>
> Ronald
> ___
> 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] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Yayoi Ukai  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Michael Niedermayer 
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> >> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> >> different time if this can't suit you.
> >>
> >> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> >> at the end of the meeting.
> >>
> >> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> >> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> >> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> >> developers who will attend it.
> >>
> >> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> >> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> >
> >> 2. general policy decision process
> >
> > heres a suggestion, maybe useful as input for discussions on
> > Saturday ...
> >
> > FFmpeg used and uses "unanimous consent" in patch reviews
> > any person could make a suggestion
> > to improve a patch and it has to be taken care of one way or another
> > before the patch is ok. This system worked quite well almost all the
> > time. So i would suggest to use the same / a similar system for
> > policy decisions
> >
> > * Everyone should be able to comment and propose options/choices
> > * There should be enough time to understand, discuss and amend
> >   proposals
> > * People should try to understand the other people and avoid strawman
> >   arguments and other non constructive discussion tactics, people/the
> >   commuity should step in if discussions become non constructive and
> >   hostile and try to get people back toward constructive discussion.
> > * People should be able to declare reservations to a proposal without
> >   blocking the proposal and as a seperate choice veto it in a blocking
> >   fashion. A veto should be public with full name of the developer,
> >   reason why it is bad for the community/project and ideally a
> >   alternative proposal. Also developers vetoing a proposal must be
> >   willing and able to work on finding an better solution.
>
> So you can add a deadline for the alternate proposal. For example,
> if the person who vetoed doesn't come up with an alternate proposal
> within 30 days,
> the original proposal must be passed.


It means everyone can slow a proposal by 30 days.

Why do we need vetos?

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Nicolas George]

Le sextidi 26 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> If we depend on these developers/contributors then IMO we should take
> their oppinons and objections serious and if one of them is willing
> to risk her/his good name to oppose a proposal in public and maybe also
> plans to put signifiant time into creating a better compromise proposal
> then i belive this is something that should not just be brushed away
> easily, and especially not "quick quick" while
> everyones minds are maybe heated about some debate
> 
> vetos would be one way to achive this

No, vetoes are not a way to achieve this. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Vetoes are weapons. Weapons for diplomacy, but weapons nonetheless. We do
not want weapons in the project.

Contributors should heed objections to their proposal because it is the
correct, polite thing to do. If we can not be polite to each other most of
the time, then the project is doomed, vetoes will not help.

To say it another way: if we work well together, we do not need vetoes, if
we do not work well together, vetoes would make it worse.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Hendrik Leppkes 
wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer 
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 06:50:50AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Yayoi Ukai 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Michael Niedermayer <
> michae...@gmx.at>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> >> > >> Hi,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday,
> and I
> >> > >> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> >> > >> different time if this can't suit you.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be
> published
> >> > >> at the end of the meeting.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life
> meeting
> >> > >> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> >> > >> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> >> > >> developers who will attend it.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> >> > >> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> >> > >
> >> > >> 2. general policy decision process
> >> > >
> >> > > heres a suggestion, maybe useful as input for discussions on
> >> > > Saturday ...
> >> > >
> >> > > FFmpeg used and uses "unanimous consent" in patch reviews
> >> > > any person could make a suggestion
> >> > > to improve a patch and it has to be taken care of one way or another
> >> > > before the patch is ok. This system worked quite well almost all the
> >> > > time. So i would suggest to use the same / a similar system for
> >> > > policy decisions
> >> > >
> >> > > * Everyone should be able to comment and propose options/choices
> >> > > * There should be enough time to understand, discuss and amend
> >> > >   proposals
> >> > > * People should try to understand the other people and avoid
> strawman
> >> > >   arguments and other non constructive discussion tactics,
> people/the
> >> > >   commuity should step in if discussions become non constructive and
> >> > >   hostile and try to get people back toward constructive discussion.
> >> > > * People should be able to declare reservations to a proposal
> without
> >> > >   blocking the proposal and as a seperate choice veto it in a
> blocking
> >> > >   fashion. A veto should be public with full name of the developer,
> >> > >   reason why it is bad for the community/project and ideally a
> >> > >   alternative proposal. Also developers vetoing a proposal must be
> >> > >   willing and able to work on finding an better solution.
> >> >
> >> > So you can add a deadline for the alternate proposal. For example,
> >> > if the person who vetoed doesn't come up with an alternate proposal
> >> > within 30 days,
> >> > the original proposal must be passed.
> >>
> >>
> >> It means everyone can slow a proposal by 30 days.
> >>
> >
> >> Why do we need vetos?
> >
> > let me awnser a different question first
> > Why do we need developers/contributors?
> > to write and maintain code amongth many other reasons
> >
> > If we depend on these developers/contributors then IMO we should take
> > their oppinons and objections serious and if one of them is willing
> > to risk her/his good name to oppose a proposal in public and maybe also
> > plans to put signifiant time into creating a better compromise proposal
> > then i belive this is something that should not just be brushed away
> > easily, and especially not "quick quick" while
> > everyones minds are maybe heated about some debate
> >
> > vetos would be one way to achive this
> > iam not saying that we absolutely need vetos but i think that we
> > should not pass proposals that would cause any one developer to leave
> > the project or to make people be seriously unhappy.
> > People contribute for fun, for social reasons and because they have to
> > (like because they are paied for it)
>
> What if these "objections" make everyone else unhappy and have no fun
> anymore, because there is no good technical reason behind them, just
> personal preference (in an area where the objecting developer is not a
> maintainer)?


I want to give the specific example of the "leadership" vote that happened
just around "The Fork" in early 2011. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a bunch of
mplungarians arose that claimed (and received!) voting rights and helped
"The Fork" arise (I'm sure that was not their intention, but it was the
consequence nonetheless). Now just imagine for a second that in addition to
voting rights, we gave each developer (including mplungarians) veto rights.
This is outrageous.

To solve this problem, veto rights should, if they exist at all, be
restricted to some of the most valuable developers by whatever metric, and
be strictly limited in number (e.g. no more than 2-3 people can have veto
rights at all). Since that 

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Monday 2015-09-07 11:37:47 +0200, Stefano Sabatini encoded:
> Hi,
> 
> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> different time if this can't suit you.
> 
> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> at the end of the meeting.
> 
> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> developers who will attend it.
> 
> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> 2. general policy decision process
> 3. VDD15
> 4. Any other business

The meeting will start in less than one hour at 15 UTC.

To attend the meeting join the #ffmpeg-meeting channel on freenode.

Updated topics of the day:
1. ABI compatibility policy
2. general policy decision process
3. VDD15
4. Any other business
5. Outreachy funding for the next round (winter 2015)
6. use of Github/Gitorious for pull requests
7. Any other business

*IMPORTANT NOTE*: the meeting channel is public and the log will be
published after the meeting.

See you soon on IRC.
-- 
FFmpeg = Free and Fast Mysterious Programmable Enlightened Geisha
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 06:50:50AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Yayoi Ukai  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Michael Niedermayer 
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> > >> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> > >> different time if this can't suit you.
> > >>
> > >> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> > >> at the end of the meeting.
> > >>
> > >> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> > >> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> > >> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> > >> developers who will attend it.
> > >>
> > >> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> > >> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> > >
> > >> 2. general policy decision process
> > >
> > > heres a suggestion, maybe useful as input for discussions on
> > > Saturday ...
> > >
> > > FFmpeg used and uses "unanimous consent" in patch reviews
> > > any person could make a suggestion
> > > to improve a patch and it has to be taken care of one way or another
> > > before the patch is ok. This system worked quite well almost all the
> > > time. So i would suggest to use the same / a similar system for
> > > policy decisions
> > >
> > > * Everyone should be able to comment and propose options/choices
> > > * There should be enough time to understand, discuss and amend
> > >   proposals
> > > * People should try to understand the other people and avoid strawman
> > >   arguments and other non constructive discussion tactics, people/the
> > >   commuity should step in if discussions become non constructive and
> > >   hostile and try to get people back toward constructive discussion.
> > > * People should be able to declare reservations to a proposal without
> > >   blocking the proposal and as a seperate choice veto it in a blocking
> > >   fashion. A veto should be public with full name of the developer,
> > >   reason why it is bad for the community/project and ideally a
> > >   alternative proposal. Also developers vetoing a proposal must be
> > >   willing and able to work on finding an better solution.
> >
> > So you can add a deadline for the alternate proposal. For example,
> > if the person who vetoed doesn't come up with an alternate proposal
> > within 30 days,
> > the original proposal must be passed.
> 
> 
> It means everyone can slow a proposal by 30 days.
> 

> Why do we need vetos?

let me awnser a different question first
Why do we need developers/contributors?
to write and maintain code amongth many other reasons

If we depend on these developers/contributors then IMO we should take
their oppinons and objections serious and if one of them is willing
to risk her/his good name to oppose a proposal in public and maybe also
plans to put signifiant time into creating a better compromise proposal
then i belive this is something that should not just be brushed away
easily, and especially not "quick quick" while
everyones minds are maybe heated about some debate

vetos would be one way to achive this
iam not saying that we absolutely need vetos but i think that we
should not pass proposals that would cause any one developer to leave
the project or to make people be seriously unhappy.
People contribute for fun, for social reasons and because they have to
(like because they are paied for it)

a proposal that makes contributions less fun is a bad proposal as it
will result in fewer contributions.

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

Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.
-- Heraclitus


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Hendrik Leppkes]

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer  wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 06:50:50AM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Yayoi Ukai  wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Michael Niedermayer 
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> > >> Hi,
>> > >>
>> > >> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
>> > >> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
>> > >> different time if this can't suit you.
>> > >>
>> > >> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
>> > >> at the end of the meeting.
>> > >>
>> > >> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
>> > >> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
>> > >> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
>> > >> developers who will attend it.
>> > >>
>> > >> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
>> > >> 1. ABI compatibility policy
>> > >
>> > >> 2. general policy decision process
>> > >
>> > > heres a suggestion, maybe useful as input for discussions on
>> > > Saturday ...
>> > >
>> > > FFmpeg used and uses "unanimous consent" in patch reviews
>> > > any person could make a suggestion
>> > > to improve a patch and it has to be taken care of one way or another
>> > > before the patch is ok. This system worked quite well almost all the
>> > > time. So i would suggest to use the same / a similar system for
>> > > policy decisions
>> > >
>> > > * Everyone should be able to comment and propose options/choices
>> > > * There should be enough time to understand, discuss and amend
>> > >   proposals
>> > > * People should try to understand the other people and avoid strawman
>> > >   arguments and other non constructive discussion tactics, people/the
>> > >   commuity should step in if discussions become non constructive and
>> > >   hostile and try to get people back toward constructive discussion.
>> > > * People should be able to declare reservations to a proposal without
>> > >   blocking the proposal and as a seperate choice veto it in a blocking
>> > >   fashion. A veto should be public with full name of the developer,
>> > >   reason why it is bad for the community/project and ideally a
>> > >   alternative proposal. Also developers vetoing a proposal must be
>> > >   willing and able to work on finding an better solution.
>> >
>> > So you can add a deadline for the alternate proposal. For example,
>> > if the person who vetoed doesn't come up with an alternate proposal
>> > within 30 days,
>> > the original proposal must be passed.
>>
>>
>> It means everyone can slow a proposal by 30 days.
>>
>
>> Why do we need vetos?
>
> let me awnser a different question first
> Why do we need developers/contributors?
> to write and maintain code amongth many other reasons
>
> If we depend on these developers/contributors then IMO we should take
> their oppinons and objections serious and if one of them is willing
> to risk her/his good name to oppose a proposal in public and maybe also
> plans to put signifiant time into creating a better compromise proposal
> then i belive this is something that should not just be brushed away
> easily, and especially not "quick quick" while
> everyones minds are maybe heated about some debate
>
> vetos would be one way to achive this
> iam not saying that we absolutely need vetos but i think that we
> should not pass proposals that would cause any one developer to leave
> the project or to make people be seriously unhappy.
> People contribute for fun, for social reasons and because they have to
> (like because they are paied for it)

What if these "objections" make everyone else unhappy and have no fun
anymore, because there is no good technical reason behind them, just
personal preference (in an area where the objecting developer is not a
maintainer)?
We have had such cases before, endless arguments on the ML and in the
end the majority of developers was just annoyed and eventually dropped
it because it was too much effort (and the objecting party also not
constructively providing an alternative)

Unless there is a clear and documented technical reason for an
objection (in which case one would hope the issue solves itself
anyway), a majority should be able to move forward, and not just get
annoyed and frustrated when submitting improvements.

>
> a proposal that makes contributions less fun is a bad proposal as it
> will result in fewer contributions.
>
> [...]
> --
> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony.
> -- Heraclitus
>
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Nicolas George]

Le quartidi 24 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Ganesh Ajjanagadde a écrit :
> A less important issue; but I think a clear stance on use of
> Github/Gitorious and their pull request development model would be
> useful. I think it is clear that in general many people here do not
> like it, and repeated comments on the FFmpeg Github page discourage
> it. However, a user checking out README.md (which is the document
> people see on Github) does not have an explicit note on this; and
> instead only a hyperlink to the documentation which again lacks full
> clarity on this point. My own proposed solution is an added line to
> README.md clearly stating that FFmpeg does not do pull requests from
> Github, and instead that we use the mailing list. This will hopefully
> reduce the number of pull requests on Github; thus avoiding
> fragmentation of development discussion.

I agree, I find the rise of this kind of pull requests rather annoying: they
frequently require to use a web browser, and even a fully javascript-enabled
web browser, with awful accessibility (keyboard access, font settings). I
already find handling tickets with Trac rather annoying for that reason, I
hope we can continue to work from the comfort of a good mail client.

Regards,

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:58:51PM -0400, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Michael Niedermayer 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> > > propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> > > different time if this can't suit you.
> > >
> > > The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> > > at the end of the meeting.
> > >
> > > This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> > > that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> > > (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> > > developers who will attend it.
> > >
> > > I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> > > 1. ABI compatibility policy
> >
> > > 2. general policy decision process
> >
> > heres a suggestion, maybe useful as input for discussions on
> > Saturday ...
> >
> > FFmpeg used and uses "unanimous consent" in patch reviews
> > any person could make a suggestion
> > to improve a patch and it has to be taken care of one way or another
> > before the patch is ok. This system worked quite well almost all the
> > time. So i would suggest to use the same / a similar system for
> > policy decisions
> >
> > * Everyone should be able to comment and propose options/choices
> > * There should be enough time to understand, discuss and amend
> >   proposals
> > * People should try to understand the other people and avoid strawman
> >   arguments and other non constructive discussion tactics, people/the
> >   commuity should step in if discussions become non constructive and
> >   hostile and try to get people back toward constructive discussion.
> > * People should be able to declare reservations to a proposal without
> >   blocking the proposal and as a seperate choice veto it in a blocking
> >   fashion. A veto should be public with full name of the developer,
> >   reason why it is bad for the community/project and ideally a
> >   alternative proposal. Also developers vetoing a proposal must be
> >   willing and able to work on finding an better solution.
> 
> 
> I have serious reservations about giving each developer veto rights; imho,
> we need a much higher bar than that.

> As evidence, I would like to offer the
> example of the united nations security council having only 5 members with
> veto power, and that's working out really well, right?  So in

I have a few problems with using the UN security council as
comparission
1. Deciding about Wars and sanctions is very different from deciding
   about the policy of a free software project. Wars and sanctions
   always harm someone, and id even claim they often help noone either.
   OTOH policy decissions in a free software project should not harm
   any of its members. If they do signifiantly harm a member then
   should they really be done? ...

2. Theres also a big similarity between the UN and a project of
   volunteers, in both cases members only are part of as long as they
   like, leaving or ignoring decissions is relatively easy.
   If you imagine the UN not having a 5 member veto right, how many
   of these 5 members would still be in the UN? how many of their
   allies ? and what meaning would the UN have or would it without
   that rule even have been formed in the first place 
   similarly if in a group of volunteers decissions are made that
   trample over a "very strong objection / veto", do you think that
   volunteer will still contribute afterwards or just push his
   changes to his own repository on github and leave it to others
   to integrate them as they see fit?

3. the UN isnt really using a "unanimous consent" system,
   even the security council is not, as only their permanent members
   have veto power, it would make more sense to use cases where
   "unanimous consent" is actually used as comparission


> light of that, if we decide to go this route, I would humbly suggest to
> make sure our number of developers with veto power is significantly smaller
> than five. "Use it wisely" won't work, power corrupts. Let's fix it by
> design.
>
> Ronald
> ___
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

-- 
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

What does censorship reveal? It reveals fear. -- Julian Assange


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Yayoi Ukai]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde  wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stefano Sabatini  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
>> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
>> different time if this can't suit you.
>>
>> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
>> at the end of the meeting.
>>
>> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
>> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
>> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
>> developers who will attend it.
>>
>> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
>> 1. ABI compatibility policy
>> 2. general policy decision process
>> 3. VDD15
>> 4. Any other business
>>
>> Feel free to suggest other topics.
>
> A less important issue; but I think a clear stance on use of
> Github/Gitorious and their pull request development model would be
> useful. I think it is clear that in general many people here do not
> like it, and repeated comments on the FFmpeg Github page discourage
> it. However, a user checking out README.md (which is the document
> people see on Github) does not have an explicit note on this; and
> instead only a hyperlink to the documentation which again lacks full
> clarity on this point. My own proposed solution is an added line to
> README.md clearly stating that FFmpeg does not do pull requests from
> Github, and instead that we use the mailing list. This will hopefully
> reduce the number of pull requests on Github; thus avoiding
> fragmentation of development discussion.

Also FYI,

FFmpeg page says currently: (https://www.ffmpeg.org/developer.html#Contributing)

"""(beginning of quote)

There are 3 ways by which code gets into ffmpeg.

1. Submitting Patches to the main developer mailing list see
Submitting patches for details.
2. Directly committing changes to the main tree.
3. Committing changes to a git clone, for example on github.com or
gitorious.org. And asking us to merge these changes.

Whichever way, changes should be reviewed by the maintainer of the
code before they are committed. And they should follow the Coding
Rules. The developer making the commit and the author are responsible
for their changes and should try to fix issues their commit causes.

"""(end of quote)

Maybe No.3 needs to be removed?


>
>> --
>> FFmpeg = Fascinating & Fiendish Murdering Powerful Earthshaking Gymnast
>> ___
>> 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
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Nicolas George]

Le quintidi 25 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> I have a few problems with using the UN security council as
> comparission

I agree that this comparison is not very good, but I do not think that your
fist mail about vetoes and unanimous consensus address the issue.

Discussing the best option and trying to all agree is already how the
project work. There is no need to codify it by calling objections vetoes.

The problem happens when the project does not manage to reach unanimous
consensus. The more people are involved in the project, the more likely it
is to happen. If we are talking about merging, remember why the fork
happened in the first place: because people did not agree. If the same
people come together again, they will disagree again.

The project needs a way of making a decision when people do not agree.

The process of making that not-unanimous decision must be codified, so that
people who do not like the outcome can not contest it.

And the process needs to be codified while we mostly agree, because we need
to agree on the process. Otherwise, people could try to propose a process
that favours the outcome they prefer, or be accused of doing so.

At the very least, the project probably needs some kind of voting process to
make important and controversial decisions. It needs to express who can
vote, and how much weight each person has, how to call for a vote, how to
vote (delay, secret or public ballot), how to combine the ballots into a
result (if it is not a yes/no question, see Condorcet's paradoxes and
Arrows's theorem).

Of course, most of it can be imitated from other projects who already have
that kind of procedure.

And of course, we should all bear in mind that this is only a last resort,
when we have utterly failed to agree.


Another point: disagreements of that kind happen because of non-technical
considerations, basically for reasons of taste. There is not one side right
and the other side wrong, there are just people who give different weight to
different kind of annoyances. This can happen for small things as well as
big ones, and we do not want to call for a vote every time someone wants to
add a workaround for a broken compiler while someone else wants to tell the
users to get a working one.

Therefore, I believe a lightweight decision making process would be useful
as well. And the simplest solution would be to just have someone make the
decision.

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Ronald S. Bultje]

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Nicolas George  wrote:

> Le quintidi 25 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > I have a few problems with using the UN security council as
> > comparission
>
[..]

> The project needs a way of making a decision when people do not agree.


+1, that's exactly what I meant.

(Thank you for putting it into words.)

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Clément Bœsch]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> different time if this can't suit you.
> 

Being in CEST, it kind of blocks the afternoon to beginning of evening,
I'm actually not sure I'll be able to stay for very long. One or two hours
earlier would be great.

> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> at the end of the meeting.
> 
> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> developers who will attend it.
> 
> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):

> 1. ABI compatibility policy

This needs to be discussed ASAP since it's blocking some patches. Any
person willing to have a word on this needs to attend the meeting since we
will likely come up with a decision.

> 2. general policy decision process
> 3. VDD15
> 4. Any other business
> 
> Feel free to suggest other topics.

-- 
Clément B.


pgpbN2gh7k2DY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> different time if this can't suit you.
> 
> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> at the end of the meeting.
> 
> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> developers who will attend it.
> 
> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> 1. ABI compatibility policy

> 2. general policy decision process

heres a suggestion, maybe useful as input for discussions on
Saturday ...

FFmpeg used and uses "unanimous consent" in patch reviews
any person could make a suggestion
to improve a patch and it has to be taken care of one way or another
before the patch is ok. This system worked quite well almost all the
time. So i would suggest to use the same / a similar system for
policy decisions

* Everyone should be able to comment and propose options/choices
* There should be enough time to understand, discuss and amend
  proposals
* People should try to understand the other people and avoid strawman
  arguments and other non constructive discussion tactics, people/the
  commuity should step in if discussions become non constructive and
  hostile and try to get people back toward constructive discussion.
* People should be able to declare reservations to a proposal without
  blocking the proposal and as a seperate choice veto it in a blocking
  fashion. A veto should be public with full name of the developer,
  reason why it is bad for the community/project and ideally a
  alternative proposal. Also developers vetoing a proposal must be
  willing and able to work on finding an better solution.
* The authors of proposals should try to amend proposals based on
  raised issues & reservations and restart the process if changes
  where made. There could be a maximum number of such restarts after
  which only vetos would block

If this doesnt work due to too many vetos then it could be adjusted
to require 2 or more vetos to reject a proposal, but IMHO i dont think
this would be needed. Simply having ones full name in public with a
veto should result in people using the veto right wisely.

A "unanimous consent" system also should push toward cooperation
and discussions intended to find compromises and understanding the
others. Because simply trying to be loud and push and troll are
unlikely effective means to find an agreement. also such a system, if
it works, would ensure noones oppinion or suggestion is just pushed
aside

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

There will always be a question for which you do not know the correct answer.


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Ganesh Ajjanagadde]

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stefano Sabatini  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> different time if this can't suit you.
>
> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> at the end of the meeting.
>
> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> developers who will attend it.
>
> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> 2. general policy decision process
> 3. VDD15
> 4. Any other business
>
> Feel free to suggest other topics.

A less important issue; but I think a clear stance on use of
Github/Gitorious and their pull request development model would be
useful. I think it is clear that in general many people here do not
like it, and repeated comments on the FFmpeg Github page discourage
it. However, a user checking out README.md (which is the document
people see on Github) does not have an explicit note on this; and
instead only a hyperlink to the documentation which again lacks full
clarity on this point. My own proposed solution is an added line to
README.md clearly stating that FFmpeg does not do pull requests from
Github, and instead that we use the mailing list. This will hopefully
reduce the number of pull requests on Github; thus avoiding
fragmentation of development discussion.

> --
> FFmpeg = Fascinating & Fiendish Murdering Powerful Earthshaking Gymnast
> ___
> 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] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 09:25:20PM -0700, Yayoi Ukai wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Michael Niedermayer  wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> >> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> >> different time if this can't suit you.
> >>
> >> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> >> at the end of the meeting.
> >>
> >> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> >> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> >> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> >> developers who will attend it.
> >>
> >> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> >> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> >> 2. general policy decision process
> >> 3. VDD15
> >> 4. Any other business
> >
> > 5. Outreachy funding, we again need funding for the next round (winter 2015)
> > i guess this doesnt need "discussion" but we need to find a sponsor or
> > use our limited funds
> 
> I am happy to help fundraising for the next round of Outreachy.
> Please let me know if I can help.

sure you can help!
if you can find some company to fund FFmpeg 1 slot in the next
round of outreachy. But its not easy!
please see https://wiki.gnome.org/Outreachy/Admin/InfoForOrgs
AFAIK 6500 USD are required to sponsor 1 slot which is the minimum
needed to participate


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

Many things microsoft did are stupid, but not doing something just because
microsoft did it is even more stupid. If everything ms did were stupid they
would be bankrupt already.


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Yayoi Ukai]

On Sep 8, 2015 3:21 AM, "Michael Niedermayer"  wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 09:25:20PM -0700, Yayoi Ukai wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Michael Niedermayer 
wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> > >> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> > >> different time if this can't suit you.
> > >>
> > >> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> > >> at the end of the meeting.
> > >>
> > >> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> > >> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> > >> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> > >> developers who will attend it.
> > >>
> > >> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> > >> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> > >> 2. general policy decision process
> > >> 3. VDD15
> > >> 4. Any other business
> > >
> > > 5. Outreachy funding, we again need funding for the next round
(winter 2015)
> > > i guess this doesnt need "discussion" but we need to find a sponsor or
> > > use our limited funds
> >
> > I am happy to help fundraising for the next round of Outreachy.
> > Please let me know if I can help.
>
> sure you can help!
Cool

> if you can find some company to fund FFmpeg 1 slot in the next
> round of outreachy. But its not easy!
> please see https://wiki.gnome.org/Outreachy/Admin/InfoForOrgs
> AFAIK 6500 USD are required to sponsor 1 slot which is the minimum
> needed to participate

I see. I will start a separate thread. I have a few questions. (Especially
since you said it's not easy..)

>
>
> [...]
> --
> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> Many things microsoft did are stupid, but not doing something just because
> microsoft did it is even more stupid. If everything ms did were stupid
they
> would be bankrupt already.
>
> ___
> 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] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
> different time if this can't suit you.
> 
> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
> at the end of the meeting.
> 
> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
> developers who will attend it.
> 
> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
> 1. ABI compatibility policy
> 2. general policy decision process
> 3. VDD15
> 4. Any other business

5. Outreachy funding, we again need funding for the next round (winter 2015)
i guess this doesnt need "discussion" but we need to find a sponsor or
use our limited funds

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

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know
nothing. -- Socrates


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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting on Saturday 2015-09-12, UTC 15:00

[Yayoi Ukai]

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Michael Niedermayer  wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I propose to have an official IRC meeting on the next Saturday, and I
>> propose the tentative time of 15:00 UTC, but feel free to propose a
>> different time if this can't suit you.
>>
>> The IRC meeting channel will be public and the log will be published
>> at the end of the meeting.
>>
>> This meeting is also meant as a preparation for the real-life meeting
>> that will be held in Paris at the next VDD
>> (http://www.videolan.org/videolan/events/vdd15/) for the FFmpeg
>> developers who will attend it.
>>
>> I propose these topics of the day (suggested by ubitux on IRC):
>> 1. ABI compatibility policy
>> 2. general policy decision process
>> 3. VDD15
>> 4. Any other business
>
> 5. Outreachy funding, we again need funding for the next round (winter 2015)
> i guess this doesnt need "discussion" but we need to find a sponsor or
> use our limited funds

I am happy to help fundraising for the next round of Outreachy.
Please let me know if I can help.

Yayoi


>
> [...]
> --
> Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
>
> I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know
> nothing. -- Socrates
>
> ___
> 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] IRC meeting

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Tuesday 2014-09-30 20:57:33 -0700, Timothy Gu encoded:
 Hi,
 
 On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Stefano Sabatini stefa...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi,
 
  I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting the next Saturday, 4th
  October, UTC 16. Alternatively, I propose the Saturday of the next
  week, Saturday October 11, same time.
 
 I don't think I will be available for the entire meeting on either
 Saturdays, but I slightly prefer October 4th. Do not take my
 availability as a blocker as I won't say much during the FFmeetings
 anyway.
 
 
  Candidate topics of the day:
  - VDD 2014 report and discussion, in particular with regards to
relationships with libav
  - OPW program organization
  - technical development issues
  - misc topics
 
  Feel free to propose other topics.
 
 I can't think of anything else right now. Thank you for organizing the 
 meetings.
 
 I have created a wiki page for this FFmeeting here:
 http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/FFmeeting/2014-10. Feel free to add more
 stuff to it.

So, since we have already two preferences for Saturday 4 October, I
think we should stick with it. If I see no other comments, I'll settle
the date.

Thanks all.
-- 
FFmpeg = Faithful Freak Marvellous Power Entertaining Geisha
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Lou Logan]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:39:23 +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:

 Hi,
 
 I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting the next Saturday, 4th
 October, UTC 16. Alternatively, I propose the Saturday of the next
 week, Saturday October 11, same time.

I can most likely show up on Oct 4. I'll be unavailable on Oct 11
if we choose that date, but don't consider me to be blocking whatever
date is preferred by others.

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Timothy Gu]

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:39 AM, Stefano Sabatini stefa...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi,

 I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting the next Saturday, 4th
 October, UTC 16. Alternatively, I propose the Saturday of the next
 week, Saturday October 11, same time.

I don't think I will be available for the entire meeting on either
Saturdays, but I slightly prefer October 4th. Do not take my
availability as a blocker as I won't say much during the FFmeetings
anyway.


 Candidate topics of the day:
 - VDD 2014 report and discussion, in particular with regards to
   relationships with libav
 - OPW program organization
 - technical development issues
 - misc topics

 Feel free to propose other topics.

I can't think of anything else right now. Thank you for organizing the meetings.

I have created a wiki page for this FFmeeting here:
http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/FFmeeting/2014-10. Feel free to add more
stuff to it.

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

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] IRC meeting

[Clément Bœsch]

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 05:39:23PM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I want to propose to have an FFmpeg IRC meeting the next Saturday, 4th
 October, UTC 16. Alternatively, I propose the Saturday of the next
 week, Saturday October 11, same time.
 
 Candidate topics of the day:
 - VDD 2014 report and discussion, in particular with regards to
   relationships with libav
 - OPW program organization
 - technical development issues
 - misc topics
 
 Feel free to propose other topics.
 
 Best regards.

LGTM for both dates

(#ffmpeg-devel, right?)

-- 
Clément B.


pgpEvW3_TQTeP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel