On Jun 3, 2024, at 11:53 PM, Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 3:01 AM Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
Reposting my question/comment here since Thilo hasn't had a chance to respond, but shouldn't these kinds of requests go through the GA? If anybody can do whatever they want with the ffmpeg name, then what's the point of voting and following the established process?
Probably? I'm not actually sure what the process is for getting an FFmpeg booth at a conference. Is there a documented process somewhere for how this should be done? If not this might be a good opportunity to create one.
Agreed, do you have a draft you could share as a base of discussion? Once defined, we could have the GA vote on it
If you really want to work on a proposal I'm happy to collaborate with you offline to draft something and then propose it to the GA.
It might also make for a good topic of discussion at VDD. For how much drama there was about NAB on the list I was surprised there was zero discussion about it at FOSDEM.
There were probably more important topics to discuss and the lingering hope that the problematic points would have been handled better than by calling people trolls
Perhaps. Shall we set something up at VDD? I think in person discussion can go a long way to avoid the kind of miscommunication that can happen over email.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that booths are cost-problematic, but rather they are lacking in process (one shouldn't allowed use ffmpeg name "just because") and in scope (aka "the why" and what kind of results are expected by investing time in said booth)
My part of this thread started by responding to "IBC is probably not as (cost-)problematic as NAB, w.r.t. setting up the booth or transportation". - Cosmin