Hi all Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too late I propose that if we have the oppertunity again next year to receive a grant from STF. That we use it to fund: * Paul to work on FFmpeg full time. My idea here is that he can work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg (so its not full time employment for specific work but simply full time employment for him to work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg any way he likes) Paul is the 2nd largest contributor to FFmpeg (git shortlog -s -n) * Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman upgrade that is needed with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about. * Fund maintaince on the bug tracker, try to reproduce bugs, ask users to provide reproduceable cases, close bugs still unreproduceable, ... ATM we have over 2000 "new" bugs that are not even marked as open * Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events. we already refund individuals but i think we are lacking on the organizational side. We should also have on these events at least one person who can awnser developer/user questions and someone who can awnser buisness questions (on buisness related events). Also we need some eye catching things there, a big screen/projector that plays some real time filtered version from a camera. Or maybe have more people remotely be available from the FFmpeg team through real time streaming (as in, if someone wants to be on some event but cant physically go there, we could put a notebook on the table facing visitors showing something like a video chat. Also we need more cute girls on these events, everything i hear its 100% male geeks/hackers. Also a "24/7" realtime stream from any booth would be nice Thanks -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The real ebay dictionary, page 1 "Used only once" - "Some unspecified defect prevented a second use" "In good condition" - "Can be repaird by experienced expert" "As is" - "You wouldnt want it even if you were payed for it, if you knew ..."
Hi, On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:50 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events. we already refund individuals but i think we are lacking on the organizational side. We should also have on these events at least one person who can awnser developer/user questions and someone who can awnser buisness questions (on buisness related events).
Maybe not 100% the same thing, but ... As you say, there's several of us (including me) that attend some of these events. In addition to sponsoring more people to go, I'd be very excited to wear FFmpeg gear and at least make the FFmpeg brand more visible. (Right now I wear videolan gear at most events.) Make some nice-looking hoodies etc. that we'd like to wear and find an efficient way to distribute them. Ronald
On 17.05.24 16:43, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:50 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events. we already refund individuals but i think we are lacking on the organizational side. We should also have on these events at least one person who can awnser developer/user questions and someone who can awnser buisness questions (on buisness related events).
Maybe not 100% the same thing, but ... As you say, there's several of us (including me) that attend some of these events. In addition to sponsoring more people to go, I'd be very excited to wear FFmpeg gear and at least make the FFmpeg brand more visible. (Right now I wear videolan gear at most events.) Make some nice-looking hoodies etc. that we'd like to wear and find an efficient way to distribute them.
We have FFmpeg designs for T-Shirts and Hoodies. From the last badge we ordered there are still plenty of T-Shirts. I'd sent around a large badge vial mail all over the world some years ago and if there is enough demand I could do that again. Also I could bring stuff to FOSDEM or other cons for distribution if I'd know the demand from developers. We had occasionally some stuff with us to give away to users. However this is not very practical for anything where we'd need to hop into a plane for due to weight & space restrictions. Always having some swag to give away would produce costs for us. -Thilo
Le 17 mai 2024 16:49:58 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too late
I propose that if we have the oppertunity again next year to receive a grant from STF. That we use it to fund:
* Paul to work on FFmpeg full time. My idea here is that he can work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg (so its not full time employment for specific work but simply full time employment for him to work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg any way he likes) Paul is the 2nd largest contributor to FFmpeg (git shortlog -s -n)
There are many grave flaws with such an idea. In the first place, it is far from certain that he himself would agree to such a deal at this point. And if he did, it is not clear that he would agree to follow the project's defined practices. And ultimately, being paid to do whatever you want is not much different from fictitious employment or embezzlement, which is probably illegal in Germany (for good reasons). It is also a less than ideal time for that sort of proposal: there are quite a few members of the community who may be wanting to be paid to work on FFmpeg, and it just doesn't seem fair that someone would be paid to do literally whatever they want, no matter how much they have contributed.
* Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman upgrade that is needed with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
I agree that this should be paid but I would expect that STF would not be too keen on it, not that I'd know really.
* Fund maintaince on the bug tracker, try to reproduce bugs, ask users to provide reproduceable cases, close bugs still unreproduceable, ... ATM we have over 2000 "new" bugs that are not even marked as open
This is a double-edged sword. If somebody gets paid to do that, then that is one more reason for others not to do it. And again, it is completely reasonable to be paid for that, and also for code reviews and writing test cases (if we want to complete the menial task list), but I am perplexed as to STF's stance on that.
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events. we already refund individuals but i think we are lacking on the organizational side. We should also have on these events at least one person who can awnser developer/user questions and someone who can awnser buisness questions (on buisness related events). Also we need some eye catching things there, a big screen/projector that plays some real time filtered version from a camera. Or maybe have more people remotely be available from the FFmpeg team through real time streaming (as in, if someone wants to be on some event but cant physically go there, we could put a notebook on the table facing visitors showing something like a video chat. Also we need more cute girls on these events, everything i hear its 100% male geeks/hackers. Also a "24/7" realtime stream from any booth would be nice
This is not something that STF should pay for, AFAIU. This is something that professionals should pay out of their budget (or their employer's) for the business events, and SPI for cheap/community events, IMO. Br,
[...]
* Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman upgrade that is needed with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
I agree that this should be paid but I would expect that STF would not be too keen on it, not that I'd know really.
We should absolutely pay for such activity and STF is very well willing to fund such things.
* Fund maintaince on the bug tracker, try to reproduce bugs, ask users to provide reproduceable cases, close bugs still unreproduceable, ... ATM we have over 2000 "new" bugs that are not even marked as open
This is a double-edged sword. If somebody gets paid to do that, then that is one more reason for others not to do it.
And again, it is completely reasonable to be paid for that, and also for code reviews and writing test cases (if we want to complete the menial task list), but I am perplexed as to STF's stance on that.
Same as above about that we should and STF would. Especially since no corporate interest usually pays anyone for these tasks (in case of reviews it might of course be considered a good thing). The one problem to solve here AFAICT is we don't know exactly what quantity of bugs, reviewable code submissions and other maintenance work will come up in the next 12 months. So it renders impossible to define in prior the workload, milestones and compensation per contributor interested as we did this year for well-defined tasks. What we should consider IMO is defining the tasks (patch review, bug review & fix, FATE extensions, checkasm extensions, etc. as well such things for the administrative tasks from above) and defining a budget for these tasks. Then, allow 'everyone interested' (aka git push access?) to claim a part of that budget every N-months, depending what the corresponding contributor actually did and can somehow be determined. Regarding STF, this could visualize as one big milestone per task with a budget of X and this group of people working on it. How exactly the money distributes from there, depends on the actual work done afterwards. However, there are many questions about the details for our side and probably on the STF side. We should however start with at least one of these tasks aiming for next year, trying to setup some process that would work for us and can then be aligned with what is possible with STF.
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events. we already refund individuals but i think we are lacking on the organizational side. We should also have on these events at least one person who can awnser developer/user questions and someone who can awnser buisness questions (on buisness related events). Also we need some eye catching things there, a big screen/projector that plays some real time filtered version from a camera. Or maybe have more people remotely be available from the FFmpeg team through real time streaming (as in, if someone wants to be on some event but cant physically go there, we could put a notebook on the table facing visitors showing something like a video chat. Also we need more cute girls on these events, everything i hear its 100% male geeks/hackers. Also a "24/7" realtime stream from any booth would be nice
This is not something that STF should pay for, AFAIU. This is something that professionals should pay out of their budget (or their employer's) for the business events, and SPI for cheap/community events, IMO.
I think we should fund all non-b2b appearances. About b2b, I wouldn't like our donation based money to be spent. We had corporate sponsorship in the past not having to think about it and possibly will have that as well in the future. The companies are interested in seeing us there and some are willing to pay for that happening. I think we could as well get dedicated STF money to cover such costs not being dependent on supportive companies and plan ahead better. That is nothing that 'professionals' should pay out of their budget or should even be allowed to do as we talk about a presence for the open-source project, not some company's presence. -Thilo
On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 01:29:43PM +0200, Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
[...]
* Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman upgrade that is needed with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
I agree that this should be paid but I would expect that STF would not be too keen on it, not that I'd know really.
We should absolutely pay for such activity and STF is very well willing to fund such things.
* Fund maintaince on the bug tracker, try to reproduce bugs, ask users to provide reproduceable cases, close bugs still unreproduceable, ... ATM we have over 2000 "new" bugs that are not even marked as open
This is a double-edged sword. If somebody gets paid to do that, then that is one more reason for others not to do it.
And again, it is completely reasonable to be paid for that, and also for code reviews and writing test cases (if we want to complete the menial task list), but I am perplexed as to STF's stance on that.
Same as above about that we should and STF would. Especially since no corporate interest usually pays anyone for these tasks (in case of reviews it might of course be considered a good thing).
The one problem to solve here AFAICT is we don't know exactly what quantity of bugs, reviewable code submissions and other maintenance work will come up in the next 12 months. So it renders impossible to define in prior the workload, milestones and compensation per contributor interested as we did this year for well-defined tasks.
What we should consider IMO is defining the tasks (patch review, bug review & fix, FATE extensions, checkasm extensions, etc. as well such things for the administrative tasks from above) and defining a budget for these tasks. Then, allow 'everyone interested' (aka git push access?) to claim a part of that budget every N-months, depending what the corresponding contributor actually did and can somehow be determined.
Another solution would be to have a variable-sized primary task, with a secondary task that can absorb leftover time. For example, if your primary task was reviewing patches, your secondary task might be improving the patch review process. So when you get to the point where you'd rather let someone else claim a bounty than say "fix your indentation" one more time, your incentive is instead to write a tutorial, or a review bot, or otherwise get to the root cause.
Le sunnuntaina 19. toukokuuta 2024, 14.29.43 EEST Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg- devel a écrit :
[...]
* Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman upgrade that is needed>> with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
I agree that this should be paid but I would expect that STF would not be too keen on it, not that I'd know really. We should absolutely pay for such activity and STF is very well willing to fund such things.
Again, I don't know but that seems to stray from their stated goals. Also this is most certainly not a full-time job, and it requires a very high level of trust. In practice, what this really means is paying Michael. It is more of a question whether STF is willing to pay for this, and whether a reasonable task description with a reasonable average prorated workload and a pay can be defined.
And again, it is completely reasonable to be paid for that, and also for code reviews and writing test cases (if we want to complete the menial task list), but I am perplexed as to STF's stance on that.
Same as above about that we should and STF would. Especially since no corporate interest usually pays anyone for these tasks
Sadly true, but...
(in case of reviews it might of course be considered a good thing).
I think some review is better than none. There may be conflict of interests, but they are weighed by the risk of being caught abusing the review process.
The one problem to solve here AFAICT is we don't know exactly what quantity of bugs, reviewable code submissions and other maintenance work will come up in the next 12 months.
People would normally do this as interruption task whilst developing code (or writing documentation or whatever else) when there are no bugs and no review pending. Just like server admin, this is not a full-time job and we can't really pretend that it is.
So it renders impossible to define in prior the workload, milestones and compensation per contributor interested as we did this year for well-defined tasks.
If you can't define workload, deliverables and cost, you wouldn't normally get funding. So I don't see much point in arguing about this. We can all agree that it is a conundrum, and that won't make the requirement go away.
What we should consider IMO is defining the tasks (patch review, bug review & fix, FATE extensions, checkasm extensions, etc. as well such things for the administrative tasks from above) and defining a budget for these tasks.
In principles, all work deserves compensation. In practice, giving money in such small units sounds extremely impractical. Also...
Then, allow 'everyone interested' (aka git push access?) to claim a part of that budget every N-months, depending what the corresponding contributor actually did and can somehow be determined.
... with the current relatively small budget (even including STF funding), that would be a pittance for most people. I think we are better off paying a few people correctly than paying a lot of people peanuts - even leaving aside the administrative gas factory that this would add up to.
This is not something that STF should pay for, AFAIU. This is something that professionals should pay out of their budget (or their employer's) for the business events, and SPI for cheap/community events, IMO. I think we should fund all non-b2b appearances.
Of course we should reimburse reasonable transporation and accomodation costs, and of course goodies, as as been done already. Whether it's B2B, B2C or community is not really the criterion: we should simply *not* pay for booth space, booth installation or exhibitor tickets. It just so happens that in practice mostly only community conferences would allow us to hold a booth for free.
About b2b, I wouldn't like our donation based money to be spent. We had corporate sponsorship in the past not having to think about it and possibly will have that as well in the future. The companies are interested in seeing us there and some are willing to pay for that happening.
If the conference/tradeshow organisers want to use FFmpeg as a marketing argument to attract attendees, they should provide a free booth. There is simply no way that FFmpeg would recoup its expenditure on a booth. It is not selling anything, additional donations are very unlikely to end us in the black, and the chance of finding a new contributor at B2B or B2C shows is also pretty much zilch. If the booth is paid for by a business, then well that's a case of "professionals paying for it out of their budget", assuming that there are no hidden costs such as setup costs. -- 雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙 http://www.remlab.net/
On 20.05.24 20:51, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le sunnuntaina 19. toukokuuta 2024, 14.29.43 EEST Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg- devel a écrit :
[...]
* Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman upgrade that is needed>> with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
I agree that this should be paid but I would expect that STF would not be too keen on it, not that I'd know really. We should absolutely pay for such activity and STF is very well willing to fund such things.
Again, I don't know but that seems to stray from their stated goals. Also this is most certainly not a full-time job, and it requires a very high level of trust. In practice, what this really means is paying Michael.
It is more of a question whether STF is willing to pay for this, and whether a reasonable task description with a reasonable average prorated workload and a pay can be defined.
Again, I do know. "...STF is very well willing to fund such things." does not sound like an assumption to me.
And again, it is completely reasonable to be paid for that, and also for code reviews and writing test cases (if we want to complete the menial task list), but I am perplexed as to STF's stance on that.
Same as above about that we should and STF would. Especially since no corporate interest usually pays anyone for these tasks
Sadly true, but...
(in case of reviews it might of course be considered a good thing).
I think some review is better than none. There may be conflict of interests, but they are weighed by the risk of being caught abusing the review process.
I hope you realize what you argue in favor of. Reviews need to be unbiased and independent. STF sponsoring reviews could be an excellent help towards this. Corporate influence on the review process already happened in the past and the chance of getting caught is almost zero. About the rest, I think you already said that you don't find funding non-full-time positions useful in another thread - no need to reiterate that I don't agree with that nor with your assumptions that should lead to that. -Thilo
Le tiistaina 21. toukokuuta 2024, 21.43.44 EEST Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel a écrit :
Same as above about that we should and STF would. Especially since no corporate interest usually pays anyone for these tasks
Sadly true, but...
(in case of reviews it might of course be considered a good thing).
I think some review is better than none. There may be conflict of interests, but they are weighed by the risk of being caught abusing the review process. I hope you realize what you argue in favor of.
Yes. It's quoted above. Are you claiming that *no* review is better than *some* review done in *public* for all to see by a paid professional just because the person is maybe biased? First, even volunteers have their own biases. Any expert should have opinions from their experience, and that by definition makes them "biased". And second, you can't have it both ways. Either we want people to be paid for review, and they will be answerable to their sponsor, or we want people to continue to work on their free time. STF is an agency of the German government, applying German government policies. They certainly do seem to have their own biases, including on tech, e.g.: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/20/huawei_germany_ban/ to take just the most recent example to come to mind.
Reviews need to be unbiased and independent.
Ideally so but that's the land of utopia.
STF sponsoring reviews could be an excellent help towards this.
If STF is willing to sponsor reviews, that's welcome. But that would certainly not be "independent".
Corporate influence on the review process already happened in the past and the chance of getting caught is almost zero.
So how do you that it happened if it does not get caught? And "I hope you realise that you are arguing for" Intel, Loongson, etc. employees to stop reviewing patches. -- レミ・デニ-クールモン http://www.remlab.net/
Le tiistaina 21. toukokuuta 2024, 22.42.00 EEST Rémi Denis-Courmont a écrit :
And "I hope you realise that you are arguing for" Intel, Loongson, etc. employees to stop reviewing patches.
P.S.: And FFlabs too, since it is a for-profit company. -- レミ・デニ-クールモン http://www.remlab.net/
On 21.05.24 21:43, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le tiistaina 21. toukokuuta 2024, 22.42.00 EEST Rémi Denis-Courmont a écrit :
And "I hope you realise that you are arguing for" Intel, Loongson, etc. employees to stop reviewing patches.
P.S.: And FFlabs too, since it is a for-profit company.
Same remark as in the previous mail. I'm not sure how you mean that whole thing. Please elaborate / put in other words. -Thilo
On 21.05.24 21:42, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le tiistaina 21. toukokuuta 2024, 21.43.44 EEST Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel a écrit :
Same as above about that we should and STF would. Especially since no corporate interest usually pays anyone for these tasks
Sadly true, but...
(in case of reviews it might of course be considered a good thing).
I think some review is better than none. There may be conflict of interests, but they are weighed by the risk of being caught abusing the review process. I hope you realize what you argue in favor of.
Yes. It's quoted above.
Are you claiming that *no* review is better than *some* review done in *public* for all to see by a paid professional just because the person is maybe biased?
First, even volunteers have their own biases. Any expert should have opinions from their experience, and that by definition makes them "biased".
And second, you can't have it both ways. Either we want people to be paid for review, and they will be answerable to their sponsor, or we want people to continue to work on their free time.
I think that is what you don't understand. An STF sponsorship for review would not introduce any bias in favor or against some patch or sth related. A company sponsorship would as it would introduce a bias towards 'we want our stuff in'. STF has no stuff they want to be reviewed on their behalf. They are only in favor of stuff being reviewed.
STF is an agency of the German government, applying German government policies. They certainly do seem to have their own biases, including on tech, e.g.: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/20/huawei_germany_ban/ to take just the most recent example to come to mind.
No. Does not apply to any funding we might get.
Reviews need to be unbiased and independent.
Ideally so but that's the land of utopia.
Of course, we talk about what should be, don't we?
STF sponsoring reviews could be an excellent help towards this.
If STF is willing to sponsor reviews, that's welcome. But that would certainly not be "independent".
It would. As STF would not send patches we'd be obliged to review. They'd give us money just for the sake of review 'whatever comes our way'.
Corporate influence on the review process already happened in the past and the chance of getting caught is almost zero.
So how do you that it happened if it does not get caught?
I assume you mean how I know that and the guilty ones did not get caught? Well they did. An answer in public I will give not.
And "I hope you realise that you are arguing for" Intel, Loongson, etc. employees to stop reviewing patches.
Syntax error. What exactly do you mean? According to my assumptions: No, I value reviews of company employees in general which have been proven to be useful and unbiased e.g. in getting part of the community reviewing 'stuf' but not their 'own stuff'. -Thilo
Le 22 mai 2024 00:34:03 GMT+03:00, Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> a écrit :
I hope you realize what you argue in favor of.
Yes. It's quoted above.
Are you claiming that *no* review is better than *some* review done in *public* for all to see by a paid professional just because the person is maybe biased?
First, even volunteers have their own biases. Any expert should have opinions from their experience, and that by definition makes them "biased".
And second, you can't have it both ways. Either we want people to be paid for review, and they will be answerable to their sponsor, or we want people to continue to work on their free time.
I think that is what you don't understand.
You're not answering the question here. The current STF funding of 153k€ for 2 years is roughly enough to pay for ONE full-time entry-level software engineer in Germany. Even if this were doubled with another similar round of funding next year, and even if that was to be reliably renewed year on year, and assuming that STF keeps an hands-off approach of not influencing the work, that will *not* be enough to pay all reviewers. So is it better to have no reviews or reviews by skilled corporate employees? (...)
Ideally so but that's the land of utopia.
Of course, we talk about what should be, don't we?
Of course *not*. There is no point debating ideals that we can all agree on and that will never come to fruition. Rather this is all about how to concretely apply or not apply to STF, and more generally how to try to improve the sustainability of FFmpeg in a realistic manner.
And "I hope you realise that you are arguing for" Intel, Loongson, etc. employees to stop reviewing patches.
Syntax error. What exactly do you mean?
I fail to see a syntax error. You're saying that corporate employees should not review because "they [will] want to get [their]" or their colleagues' "stuff in" (your words). Intel and Loongson are obvious current examples of companies whose employees are pushing and reviewing enablement patches for their commercial hardware. That is very definitely not "unbiased" nor "independent".
According to my assumptions: No, I value reviews of company employees in general which have been proven to be useful and unbiased e.g. in getting part of the community reviewing 'stuf' but not their 'own stuff'.
I never said that I wanted biased reviews. I said some reviews were better than none, in spite of the risk of bias. So much for your grandstanding against my alleged not realising what I am advocating for, if you end up agreeing with me...
Am 22.05.24 um 14:27 schrieb Rémi Denis-Courmont:
Le 22 mai 2024 00:34:03 GMT+03:00, Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> a écrit :
I hope you realize what you argue in favor of.
Yes. It's quoted above.
Are you claiming that *no* review is better than *some* review done in *public* for all to see by a paid professional just because the person is maybe biased?
First, even volunteers have their own biases. Any expert should have opinions from their experience, and that by definition makes them "biased".
And second, you can't have it both ways. Either we want people to be paid for review, and they will be answerable to their sponsor, or we want people to continue to work on their free time.
I think that is what you don't understand.
You're not answering the question here. The current STF funding of 153k€ for 2 years is roughly enough to pay for ONE full-time entry-level software engineer in Germany. Even if this were doubled with another similar round of funding next year, and even if that was to be reliably renewed year on year, and assuming that STF keeps an hands-off approach of not influencing the work, that will *not* be enough to pay all reviewers.
So is it better to have no reviews or reviews by skilled corporate employees?
Your one question above was: "Are you claiming that [...] because the person is maybe biased?" And I answered about the biasing problem.
And "I hope you realise that you are arguing for" Intel, Loongson, etc. employees to stop reviewing patches.
Syntax error. What exactly do you mean?
I fail to see a syntax error. You're saying that corporate employees should not review because "they [will] want to get [their]" or their colleagues' "stuff in" (your words).
Intel and Loongson are obvious current examples of companies whose employees are pushing and reviewing enablement patches for their commercial hardware. That is very definitely not "unbiased" nor "independent".
Unfortunately true, yet you argue to pay more companies to do reviews instead having reviews funded by unbiased means.
According to my assumptions: No, I value reviews of company employees in general which have been proven to be useful and unbiased e.g. in getting part of the community reviewing 'stuf' but not their 'own stuff'.
I never said that I wanted biased reviews. I said some reviews were better than none, in spite of the risk of bias.
So much for your grandstanding against my alleged not realising what I am advocating for, if you end up agreeing with me...
I think we don't agree. You would want to pay some comapny/companies to do review work while I'd want reviewers to be paid directly without a middle man and corporate bias. -Thilo
Le 24 mai 2024 10:11:49 GMT+03:00, Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> a écrit :
Unfortunately true, yet you argue to pay more companies to do reviews instead having reviews funded by unbiased means.
That is a blatant and libelous lie and will be reported to CC promptly.
Hi On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 09:51:25PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le sunnuntaina 19. toukokuuta 2024, 14.29.43 EEST Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg- devel a écrit :
[...]
* Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman upgrade that is needed>> with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
I agree that this should be paid but I would expect that STF would not be too keen on it, not that I'd know really. We should absolutely pay for such activity and STF is very well willing to fund such things.
Again, I don't know but that seems to stray from their stated goals. Also this is most certainly not a full-time job, and it requires a very high level of trust. In practice, what this really means is paying Michael.
I did not and do not intend to do the mailman or OS upgrade work. I hope someone else will. thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The misfortune of the wise is better than the prosperity of the fool. -- Epicurus
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:50 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too late
I propose that if we have the oppertunity again next year to receive a grant from STF. That we use it to fund:
* Paul to work on FFmpeg full time. My idea here is that he can work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg (so its not full time employment for specific work but simply full time employment for him to work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg any way he likes) Paul is the 2nd largest contributor to FFmpeg (git shortlog -s -n)
why? nothing against Paul, but this seems pretty arbitrary, and many people would like to be paid to do whatever they want if we start sponsoring people there should be clear statements of work, goals, and everything in between * Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman
upgrade that is needed with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
* Fund maintaince on the bug tracker, try to reproduce bugs, ask users to provide reproduceable cases, close bugs still unreproduceable, ... ATM we have over 2000 "new" bugs that are not even marked as open
I see no mention of github/gitlab work, despite being highly requested on the list. Is it because we assume it'll be done already by next year? :)
something like a video chat. Also we need more cute girls on these events, everything i hear its 100% male geeks/hackers. Also a "24/7" realtime stream from any booth would be nice
I understand the idea comes from a good place, but the way it is phrased is very sketchy. -- Vittorio
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 11:08:17AM -0400, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 9:50 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too late
I propose that if we have the oppertunity again next year to receive a grant from STF. That we use it to fund:
* Paul to work on FFmpeg full time. My idea here is that he can work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg (so its not full time employment for specific work but simply full time employment for him to work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg any way he likes) Paul is the 2nd largest contributor to FFmpeg (git shortlog -s -n)
why? nothing against Paul, but this seems pretty arbitrary, and many people would like to be paid to do whatever they want if we start sponsoring people there should be clear statements of work, goals, and everything in between
Sure, my goal is to have the whole team payed eventually to work on FFmpeg. Paul is the most important ATM, he is the biggest contributor who stopped contributing. If it would succeed to fund him. I would suggest to repeat this with more people. The problem with "clear goals" is that paul without any rules or goals did work on exactly what made sense for FFmpeg, I dont think adding any rules will make this better.
* Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman
upgrade that is needed with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
* Fund maintaince on the bug tracker, try to reproduce bugs, ask users to provide reproduceable cases, close bugs still unreproduceable, ... ATM we have over 2000 "new" bugs that are not even marked as open
I see no mention of github/gitlab work, despite being highly requested on the list. Is it because we assume it'll be done already by next year? :)
that was supposed to be part of "git related tools" thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Observe your enemies, for they first find out your faults. -- Antisthenes
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:49:58PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too late
I propose that if we have the oppertunity again next year to receive a grant from STF. That we use it to fund:
* Paul to work on FFmpeg full time. My idea here is that he can work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg (so its not full time employment for specific work but simply full time employment for him to work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg any way he likes) Paul is the 2nd largest contributor to FFmpeg (git shortlog -s -n)
Instead of one person creating code five days a week, how about paying five people to review code one day a week each? As well as being less divisive among maintainers, a public list of people who are obliged to do reviews would make us peripheral developers feel less like we're shouting into a void.
On 5/17/2024 2:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Also we need more cute girls on these events, everything i hear its 100% male geeks/hackers.
This is gross and sexist. - Derek
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 04:26:55PM +0100, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
On 5/17/2024 2:49 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Also we need more cute girls on these events, everything i hear its 100% male geeks/hackers.
This is gross and sexist.
This was definitly not meant to be either of that. Let me reword this for 2024: The people on the booth are predominantly male. Similarly ffmpeg-devel is predominantly male. More gender diversity would be good. And lets have some cute puppies and other animals on the booth as they might attract some additional visitors. Thx [...] -- 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.
On 5/17/2024 7:50 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
The people on the booth are predominantly male. Similarly ffmpeg-devel is predominantly male. More gender diversity would be good.
That I can agree with. - Derek
Le 17 mai 2024 21:50:20 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
Let me reword this for 2024: The people on the booth are predominantly male. Similarly ffmpeg-devel is predominantly male. More gender diversity would be good.
As you've noted, this is an obvious problem but not an FFmpeg-specific problem. It is a industry -wide problem, and to a large extent even a problem for all of STEM. I don't think that paying people, specifically women, to staff FFmpeg booths would do any good. At best that would be putting the cart before the horse. Instead, we should get more females involved in the project, and that should naturally increase the ratio of women representing FFmpeg at events. With that noted, I don't think that this has or should have anything to do with STF. Judging by the name, it is meant to improve tech for the German people and the world at large. There are other funds to address the underrepresentation of women in OSS, and by all means, engage with them if you want funding for that.
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:49:58PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too late
This comment is inspired by the other subthread, but not directly in reply to it. I'm replying to this post rather than get in the middle of all that... What happens if someone is hired to do a job that requires access to the ML, then gets involved in a situation where there's talk of a ban? If they're banned, does that translate to suspension without pay? With pay? Banning such a person would jeopardise future funding - if they aren't banned, will people be concerned about the apparent conflict of interest? In a wider sense, hiring a single person to do a job we come to rely on (like code review) gives the project a bus number of 1. How would the STF react to a proposal like "we plan to do XYZ in 2025, but if we don't get funding for 2026, we'll drop Z and spend the time on a transition plan instead"?
On 24.05.24 11:56, Andrew Sayers wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:49:58PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too late
This comment is inspired by the other subthread, but not directly in reply to it. I'm replying to this post rather than get in the middle of all that...
Thanks :)
What happens if someone is hired to do a job that requires access to the ML, then gets involved in a situation where there's talk of a ban?
If they're banned, does that translate to suspension without pay? With pay?
Banning such a person would jeopardise future funding - if they aren't banned, will people be concerned about the apparent conflict of interest?
Interesting and something we should think about. I think the project's well-being should be the priority - meaning if we vote for a ban of someone that was trusted enough to get a contact from us in the first place, the ban should be executed - or any other measure the CC or GA sees fit. Giving a work contact to someone shall not make us dependent on that person to such an extent.
In a wider sense, hiring a single person to do a job we come to rely on (like code review) gives the project a bus number of 1. How would the STF react to a proposal like "we plan to do XYZ in 2025, but if we don't get funding for 2026, we'll drop Z and spend the time on a transition plan instead"?
Speaking as an idealist, we should uphold our procedures independently of what another entity (except the applicable law) thinks about our decisions. Realisticly speaking, we already got some feedback from STF about such potential break aways on our end. Though these are of course never good in any such business relation, these things do happen. So up to a certain extend, it won't remove us from the program. Problems arise if such things are getting frequent. We also got another layer of protection vie the SPI linked in between. If we sanction someone severely who is in current posession of a contract to do some FFmpeg work, we might stop funding that and give another contract to someone who can take over. Not saying that this could work with any kind of work but can be an option. That brings me to the idea that we need to check the contracts for potential fail-safe clauses for such extreme cases like these. Thanks, Thnilo
fre 2024-05-17 klockan 15:49 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
* Paul to work on FFmpeg full time. My idea here is that he can work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg (so its not full time employment for specific work but simply full time employment for him to work on whatever he likes in FFmpeg any way he likes) Paul is the 2nd largest contributor to FFmpeg (git shortlog -s -n)
Didn't Paul loudly "leave" the project less than one year ago?
* Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman upgrade that is needed with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
Sounds reasonable
* Fund maintaince on the bug tracker, try to reproduce bugs, ask users to provide reproduceable cases, close bugs still unreproduceable, ... ATM we have over 2000 "new" bugs that are not even marked as open
Reasonable
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events.
Also reasonable. I could help man a booth at IBC or any other event in Europe
Also we need more cute girls on these events, everything i hear its 100% male geeks/hackers.
Michael please /Tomas
Hi On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 05:19:26PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote: [...]
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events.
Also reasonable. I could help man a booth at IBC or any other event in Europe
Iam strongly in favor of that! Though i have no idea about cost (for IBC) which probably requires someone to sponsor a booth if its not free. Or any details. But i think its probably best if you mail thilo as he was helping with FFmpeg presence on many european booths thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Nations do behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. -- Abba Eban
Le 2 juin 2024 21:01:43 GMT+03:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
Hi
On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 05:19:26PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
[...]
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events.
Also reasonable. I could help man a booth at IBC or any other event in Europe
Iam strongly in favor of that! Though i have no idea about cost (for IBC) which probably requires someone to sponsor a booth if its not free.
It is nothing like free. And accomodation prices in the area are absolutely horrendous at the time of IBC. Also IME, the people there simply don't get open-source. They're there to find suppliers or clients. If you want to sell FFmpeg-derived services, it might make sense to attend. As a foundation, it simply doesn't. So yeah, unless you get a sponsor to foot the bill, don't hold a booth.
sön 2024-06-02 klockan 20:01 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
Hi
On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 05:19:26PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
[...]
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events.
Also reasonable. I could help man a booth at IBC or any other event in Europe
Iam strongly in favor of that! Though i have no idea about cost (for IBC) which probably requires someone to sponsor a booth if its not free. Or any details. But i think its probably best if you mail thilo as he was helping with FFmpeg presence on many european booths
Attending is free, so I expect booths cost quite a bit to make up the costs. There's an inquiry form on the IBC website. Can't hurt to ask Hotels aren't cheap as Rémi points out. Last time I attended IBC we had to get a hotel in Harlem. Luckily I know some people in Amsterdam /Tomas
Am 02.06.24 um 22:14 schrieb Tomas Härdin:
sön 2024-06-02 klockan 20:01 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
Hi
On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 05:19:26PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
[...]
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events.
Also reasonable. I could help man a booth at IBC or any other event in Europe
Iam strongly in favor of that! Though i have no idea about cost (for IBC) which probably requires someone to sponsor a booth if its not free. Or any details. But i think its probably best if you mail thilo as he was helping with FFmpeg presence on many european booths
Attending is free, so I expect booths cost quite a bit to make up the costs. There's an inquiry form on the IBC website. Can't hurt to ask
Hotels aren't cheap as Rémi points out. Last time I attended IBC we had to get a hotel in Harlem. Luckily I know some people in Amsterdam
We have a booth on IBC this year which again gets sponsored so no costs for FFmpeg. Some details are still unclear which is why it's not yet announced. @Thomas: Happy you want to attend, I'll keep you updated. -Thilo
Hi, Le 3 juin 2024 09:50:15 GMT+03:00, Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> a écrit :
We have a booth on IBC this year which again gets sponsored so no costs for FFmpeg. Some details are still unclear which is why it's not yet announced.
For the sake of clarity, on what basis are, or were, you negotiating a booth in the name of FFmpeg whilst keeping the community in the dark? Did SPI or Fabrice delegate this to you or something like that? How did we ensure that we don't end up with multiple people independently organising FFmpeg booths going forward if there is no coordination? IBC is probably not as (cost-)problematic as NAB, w.r.t. setting up the booth or transportation, assuming people come from Europe, and the booth itself is paid for. It makes sense for FFmpeg consultancies to market their services there. However accommodation costs are still huge, and having attended IBC a few times, I just don't really see much for FFmpeg as an open-source community to do there. Indeed, it was not appropriate for GPAC to use an FFmpeg booth at IBC, and it likewise wouldn't be appropriate for them or for any for-profit company or consultant to use an FFmpeg booth at IBC. This is not even just a moral and PR problem, but also potentially fiscal and legal, but IANAL.
Le 3 juin 2024 10:55:45 GMT+03:00, "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@remlab.net> a écrit :
Hi,
IBC is probably not as (cost-)problematic as NAB, w.r.t. setting up the booth or transportation, assuming people come from Europe, and the booth itself is paid for.
Indeed, it was not appropriate for GPAC to use an FFmpeg booth at IBC,
I meant "at NAB" here, of course.
On Jun 3, 2024, at 12:55 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
IBC is probably not as (cost-)problematic as NAB, w.r.t. setting up the booth or transportation
What was cost-problematic about NAB? As far as I know it cost ffmpeg $0. It would be hard for IBC to be less cost-problematic than that. - Cosmin
Le 3 juin 2024 19:43:52 GMT+03:00, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> a écrit :
On Jun 3, 2024, at 12:55 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
IBC is probably not as (cost-)problematic as NAB, w.r.t. setting up the booth or transportation
What was cost-problematic about NAB? As far as I know it cost ffmpeg $0. It would be hard for IBC to be less cost-problematic than that.
Booth setup is notoriously expensive due to local regulations. This was already mentioned on the list earlier, and no explanations were given how this would be funded. Well in hindsight, based on what was reported by NAB attendees, I surmise that the setup wasn't done nor funded at all and the booth was FFmpeg in name only. (That sounds like embezzlement to me but that is not really our problem, I guess.)
On Jun 3, 2024, at 10:36 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
Le 3 juin 2024 19:43:52 GMT+03:00, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> a écrit :
On Jun 3, 2024, at 12:55 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
IBC is probably not as (cost-)problematic as NAB, w.r.t. setting up the booth or transportation
What was cost-problematic about NAB? As far as I know it cost ffmpeg $0. It would be hard for IBC to be less cost-problematic than that.
Booth setup is notoriously expensive due to local regulations. This was already mentioned on the list earlier, and no explanations were given how this would be funded.
The basic booth package that was donated includes a simple booth with a table and two chairs. Thilo brought a banner and a table cloth. I donated a power strip and a case of water for the people at the booth. That was the extent of the booth setup, there were no costs.
Well in hindsight, based on what was reported by NAB attendees, I surmise that the setup wasn't done nor funded at all and the booth was FFmpeg in name only. (That sounds like embezzlement to me but that is not really our problem, I guess.)
What do you mean by setup wasn't done or funded and the booth was FFmpeg in name only? An accusation of embezzlement sounds serious. - Cosmin
Le maanantaina 3. kesäkuuta 2024, 20.48.08 EEST Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg- devel a écrit :
What was cost-problematic about NAB? As far as I know it cost ffmpeg $0. It would be hard for IBC to be less cost-problematic than that.
Booth setup is notoriously expensive due to local regulations. This was already mentioned on the list earlier, and no explanations were given how this would be funded.
The basic booth package that was donated includes a simple booth with a table and two chairs. Thilo brought a banner and a table cloth. I donated a power strip and a case of water for the people at the booth. That was the extent of the booth setup, there were no costs.
This is news. Why was that plan not communicated when the question was raised on this mailing list after the announcement of the NAB sponsorship?
Well in hindsight, based on what was reported by NAB attendees, I surmise that the setup wasn't done nor funded at all and the booth was FFmpeg in name only. (That sounds like embezzlement to me but that is not really our problem, I guess.)
What do you mean by setup wasn't done or funded and the booth was FFmpeg in name only?
GPAC self reported on using the FFmpeg booth at NAB: https://x.com/JanetGrecoBP/status/1773342135514779700 Devin even reported on this very list that there were *only* GPAC people: https://ffmpeg.org//pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-April/325765.html If there were at least three of you, then why did you not reply to Devin back then and why did you not arrange to keep at least one person on the booth while the other went eating?
An accusation of embezzlement sounds serious.
If as she herself alleged, Mrs Janet Greco used the FFmpeg booth for her or her employer's commercial interest, then that is embezzlement by the dictionary definition: the IBC booth funding that Thilo secured from the anonymous sponsor for FFmpeg would instead have been used by those third parties. IANAL, so I won't comment if this meets the legal definition. -- レミ・デニ-クールモン http://www.remlab.net/
On Jun 3, 2024, at 11:18 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
Le maanantaina 3. kesäkuuta 2024, 20.48.08 EEST Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg- devel a écrit :
What was cost-problematic about NAB? As far as I know it cost ffmpeg $0. It would be hard for IBC to be less cost-problematic than that.
Booth setup is notoriously expensive due to local regulations. This was already mentioned on the list earlier, and no explanations were given how this would be funded.
The basic booth package that was donated includes a simple booth with a table and two chairs. Thilo brought a banner and a table cloth. I donated a power strip and a case of water for the people at the booth. That was the extent of the booth setup, there were no costs.
This is news. Why was that plan not communicated when the question was raised on this mailing list after the announcement of the NAB sponsorship?
I believe Thilo responded that there were no costs to ffmpeg back then.
Well in hindsight, based on what was reported by NAB attendees, I surmise that the setup wasn't done nor funded at all and the booth was FFmpeg in name only. (That sounds like embezzlement to me but that is not really our problem, I guess.)
What do you mean by setup wasn't done or funded and the booth was FFmpeg in name only?
GPAC self reported on using the FFmpeg booth at NAB: https://x.com/JanetGrecoBP/status/1773342135514779700
Devin even reported on this very list that there were *only* GPAC people: https://ffmpeg.org//pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-April/325765.html
If there were at least three of you, then why did you not reply to Devin back then and why did you not arrange to keep at least one person on the booth while the other went eating?
Thilo called Devin to discuss this later that day, I addressed it on IRC and I think it was addressed on the mailing list as well. Not sure why you keep beating this dead horse. Yes, there were limited times when none of the ffmpeg people happened to be at the booth, and it just so happened that was the only time Devin had to stop by. The vast majority of the time there was at least one of Thilo and Ramiro at the booth and I helped to fill in when I could. To claim "it was an FFmpeg booth in name only" is an insult to the time that Thilo and Ramiro put into this. This is was a volunteer effort, you're welcome to volunteer for the IBC booth to increase the probability of there being an FFmpeg developer present at the booth at all times.
An accusation of embezzlement sounds serious.
If as she herself alleged, Mrs Janet Greco used the FFmpeg booth for her or her employer's commercial interest, then that is embezzlement by the dictionary definition: the IBC booth funding that Thilo secured from the anonymous sponsor for FFmpeg would instead have been used by those third parties.
It was not "instead used by those parties". They shared space at the booth, a relatively common practice at NAB. For what it's worth I was also not aware that GPAC would be sharing space with ffmpeg at NAB, but it's orthogonal to whether there are any booth setup costs. GPAC's contribution was to also bring a banner to hang next to the ffmpeg one.
IANAL, so I won't comment if this meets the legal definition.
Then you might want to avoid throwing such accusations around. - Cosmin
Le maanantaina 3. kesäkuuta 2024, 21.58.48 EEST Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg- devel a écrit :
Not sure why you keep beating this dead horse.
Err, I think that it is obvious why: 1) The questions were not answered back then. Calling the people asking questions troll is not answering, it's insulting. 2) IBC came up today, in much the same way as NAB did.
This is was a volunteer effort, you're welcome to volunteer for the IBC booth to increase the probability of there being an FFmpeg developer present at the booth at all times.
I don't know about that. I mean, I did obtain an FFmpeg booth at SCaLE. A boot that Thilo unilaterally canceled because He could not attend. You know, instead of asking for volunteers. And when I brought that out here, I was called a troll. And the CC apparently find that both the cancellation and insults were, at least except for the one member that resigned.
An accusation of embezzlement sounds serious.
If as she herself alleged, Mrs Janet Greco used the FFmpeg booth for her or her employer's commercial interest, then that is embezzlement by the dictionary definition: the IBC booth funding that Thilo secured from the anonymous sponsor for FFmpeg would instead have been used by those third parties.
It was not "instead used by those parties". They shared space at the booth, a relatively common practice at NAB.
You are splitting hairs. They were using a booth designated FFmpeg and paid for as sponsorship to a non-profit for their own commercial interest. This is legally and fiscally sketchy. And presumably the "relatively common practice at NAB" is for multiple companies to share booths, or for the company to pay for a booth and host a non-profit, not the other way around. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont http://www.remlab.net/
On Jun 3, 2024, at 12:26 PM, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
Le maanantaina 3. kesäkuuta 2024, 21.58.48 EEST Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg- devel a écrit :
Not sure why you keep beating this dead horse.
Err, I think that it is obvious why:
1) The questions were not answered back then. Calling the people asking questions troll is not answering, it's insulting.
2) IBC came up today, in much the same way as NAB did.
The costs or lack thereof came up today. Making accusations that it was FFmpeg in name only did not come up until you brought it up, and seems completely uncalled for.
This is was a volunteer effort, you're welcome to volunteer for the IBC booth to increase the probability of there being an FFmpeg developer present at the booth at all times.
I don't know about that. I mean, I did obtain an FFmpeg booth at SCaLE. A boot that Thilo unilaterally canceled because He could not attend. You know, instead of asking for volunteers. And when I brought that out here, I was called a troll.
I have no idea what happened with SCaLE. However if you put something together in future years I might be able to volunteer, it's a relatively short drive for me from Vegas. The situation with Thilo cancelling the booth sounds like a miscommunication, you may want to discuss this directly with Thilo? In any case, don't let that prevent you from volunteering at IBC if that's something you're interested in.
And the CC apparently find that both the cancellation and insults were, at least except for the one member that resigned.
An accusation of embezzlement sounds serious.
If as she herself alleged, Mrs Janet Greco used the FFmpeg booth for her or her employer's commercial interest, then that is embezzlement by the dictionary definition: the IBC booth funding that Thilo secured from the anonymous sponsor for FFmpeg would instead have been used by those third parties.
It was not "instead used by those parties". They shared space at the booth, a relatively common practice at NAB.
You are splitting hairs. They were using a booth designated FFmpeg and paid for as sponsorship to a non-profit for their own commercial interest. This is legally and fiscally sketchy. And presumably the "relatively common practice at NAB" is for multiple companies to share booths, or for the company to pay for a booth and host a non-profit, not the other way around.
GPAC is a popular open source media project, and the banner at the booth was for GPAC. To me it was very much two open source media projects sharing a booth rather than some random commercial company. Motion Spell is to GPAC roughly what FFLabs is to FFmpeg, only with a lot less drama around it, and some additional tools in the toolbox like providing a commercial license. While I found it surprising to share a booth with them, since "their own commercial interest" is to get companies to fund their open source project, much like we're all trying to get funding for FFmpeg, it didn't seem particularly problematic. That said I'm all for not doing this again in the future, but again it's orthogonal to the costs for an FFmpeg booth at either NAB or IBC. - Cosmin
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 10:57 PM Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
On Jun 3, 2024, at 12:26 PM, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
Le maanantaina 3. kesäkuuta 2024, 21.58.48 EEST Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg- devel a écrit :
Not sure why you keep beating this dead horse.
Err, I think that it is obvious why:
1) The questions were not answered back then. Calling the people asking questions troll is not answering, it's insulting.
2) IBC came up today, in much the same way as NAB did.
The costs or lack thereof came up today. Making accusations that it was FFmpeg in name only did not come up until you brought it up, and seems completely uncalled for.
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? I think this is the underlying problem with booth management, everybody acts like they own the place, and nothing changes from one event to another, instead of taking notes to improve the situation. For example : thilo or you sending a note to the GA "hey i got sponsorship for IBC/NAB/whatever, I plan to represent ffmpeg, and have a b c as objectives. Is that cool with you all? If yes, can we host GPAC and other multimedia foss projects?" would have avoided a lot of drama. -- Vittorio
On Jun 3, 2024, at 3:58 PM, Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 10:57 PM Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
On Jun 3, 2024, at 12:26 PM, Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
Le maanantaina 3. kesäkuuta 2024, 21.58.48 EEST Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg- devel a écrit :
Not sure why you keep beating this dead horse.
Err, I think that it is obvious why:
1) The questions were not answered back then. Calling the people asking questions troll is not answering, it's insulting.
2) IBC came up today, in much the same way as NAB did.
The costs or lack thereof came up today. Making accusations that it was FFmpeg in name only did not come up until you brought it up, and seems completely uncalled for.
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. 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.
I think this is the underlying problem with booth management, everybody acts like they own the place, and nothing changes from one event to another, instead of taking notes to improve the situation. For example : thilo or you sending a note to the GA "hey i got sponsorship for IBC/NAB/whatever, I plan to represent ffmpeg, and have a b c as objectives. Is that cool with you all? If yes, can we host GPAC and other multimedia foss projects?" would have avoided a lot of drama.
No disagreements from me, I do think that might have avoided a lot of drama. Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship for NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live in Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy to help at NAB next year as well should it happen again. I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB. - Cosmin
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
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
Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship for NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live in Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy to help at NAB next year as well should it happen again.
Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth" I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at
IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB.
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) -- Vittorio
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:53 AM 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
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
Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship for NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live in Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy to help at NAB next year as well should it happen again.
Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth"
I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at
IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB.
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)
Said by prominent LibAV developer.
-- Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:53 AM 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
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
Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship for NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live in Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy to help at NAB next year as well should it happen again.
Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth"
I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at
IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB.
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)
Said by prominent LibAV developer.
reported to CC :) -- Vittorio
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:09 AM Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:53 AM 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
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
Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship for NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live in Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy to help at NAB next year as well should it happen again.
Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth"
I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at
IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB.
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)
Said by prominent LibAV developer.
reported to CC :)
CC is fully controlled by prominent LibAV developers.
-- Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:09 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:09 AM Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:53 AM 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
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
Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship for NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live in Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy to help at NAB next year as well should it happen again.
Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth"
I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at
IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB.
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)
Said by prominent LibAV developer.
reported to CC :)
CC is fully controlled by prominent LibAV developers.
Not only is this factually incorrect, it's also unrelated to the topic at hand. No worries, this infringement is being reported to the CC as well, but please try to make an effort at doing better at least. Thank you -- Vittorio
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:59 PM Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:09 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:09 AM Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:53 AM 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
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
Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship for NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live in Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy to help at NAB next year as well should it happen again.
Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth"
I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at
IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB.
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)
Said by prominent LibAV developer.
reported to CC :)
CC is fully controlled by prominent LibAV developers.
Not only is this factually incorrect, it's also unrelated to the topic at hand. No worries, this infringement is being reported to the CC as well, but please try to make an effort at doing better at least. Thank you
Do not trust LibAV developers even when they are giving you gifts.
-- Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 2:02 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:59 PM Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:09 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:09 AM Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:53 AM 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
> 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
> Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship for > NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live in > Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy to > help at NAB next year as well should it happen again. >
Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth"
I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at > IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was > cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB. >
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)
Said by prominent LibAV developer.
reported to CC :)
CC is fully controlled by prominent LibAV developers.
Not only is this factually incorrect, it's also unrelated to the topic at hand. No worries, this infringement is being reported to the CC as well, but please try to make an effort at doing better at least. Thank you
Do not trust LibAV developers even when they are giving you gifts.
I'm not giving you anything, please can you stop? I don't want to flood the CC with emails, but I'll do so if that helps stifle this kind of behavior. Please disconnect, grow up, be nicer to your fellow community members, and just do better. Thanks -- Vittorio
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 2:53 PM Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 2:02 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:59 PM Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:09 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:09 AM Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:53 AM 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 > > > > 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 > > > > Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship > for > > NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live in > > Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy > to > > help at NAB next year as well should it happen again. > > > > Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth" > > I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at > > IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was > > cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB. > > > > 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) >
Said by prominent LibAV developer.
reported to CC :)
CC is fully controlled by prominent LibAV developers.
Not only is this factually incorrect, it's also unrelated to the topic at hand. No worries, this infringement is being reported to the CC as well, but please try to make an effort at doing better at least. Thank you
Do not trust LibAV developers even when they are giving you gifts.
I'm not giving you anything, please can you stop? I don't want to flood the CC with emails, but I'll do so if that helps stifle this kind of behavior. Please disconnect, grow up, be nicer to your fellow community members, and just do better.
Thank you for your arrogant continuous behavior that match nicely with your latest code contributions. If you stop responding with mails on all FFmpeg mailing lists from now to indefinite time in future nothing of value would be lost.
Thanks -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 7:39 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 2:53 PM Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 2:02 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:59 PM Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 12:09 PM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 9:09 AM Vittorio Giovara < vittorio.giovara@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 8:53 AM 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 > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > Regarding the "or you" part, I wasn't involved in securing sponsorship > > for > > > NAB or IBC. I did volunteer to help with NAB because I happen to live > in > > > Vegas and I enjoy spending time with other ffmpeg developers. I'm happy > > to > > > help at NAB next year as well should it happen again. > > > > > > > Noted, it should have said "or anybody willing to host/help a booth" > > > > I have no plans to attend IBC and no involvement with the FFmpeg booth at > > > IBC. I am merely trying to correct the perception that NAB was > > > cost-problematic, since no money was paid by the project for NAB. > > > > > > > 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) > > > > Said by prominent LibAV developer. >
reported to CC :)
CC is fully controlled by prominent LibAV developers.
Not only is this factually incorrect, it's also unrelated to the topic at hand. No worries, this infringement is being reported to the CC as well, but please try to make an effort at doing better at least. Thank you
Do not trust LibAV developers even when they are giving you gifts.
I'm not giving you anything, please can you stop? I don't want to flood the CC with emails, but I'll do so if that helps stifle this kind of behavior. Please disconnect, grow up, be nicer to your fellow community members, and just do better.
Thank you for your arrogant continuous behavior that match nicely with your latest code contributions.
I don't think I'm being arrogant when I ask you to stop abusive behavior. Imagine if people responded with "Typical librempeg developer answer" to all of your email, how would you feel about it?
If you stop responding with mails on all FFmpeg mailing lists from now to indefinite time in future nothing of value would be lost.
Please reread what you wrote and appreciate the irony of the situation. Needless to say, this is also going straight to CC :) Please just do better, I believe in you! -- Vittorio
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
If you stop responding with mails on all FFmpeg mailing lists from now to indefinite time in future nothing of value would be lost.
Please reread what you wrote and appreciate the irony of the situation.
Needless to say, this is also going straight to CC :) Please just do better, I believe in you!
I find this last sentence quite condescending, something you would tell your kid. Regards, Marton
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 9:21 AM Marton Balint <cus@passwd.hu> wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
If you stop responding with mails on all FFmpeg mailing lists from now to indefinite time in future nothing of value would be lost.
Please reread what you wrote and appreciate the irony of the situation.
Needless to say, this is also going straight to CC :) Please just do better, I believe in you!
I find this last sentence quite condescending, something you would tell your kid.
This happens when people are behaving like children, and that happens when there are no rules or repercussions to bad behavior. I am kind of stumped how throughout all this exchange, in which I'm subject to abuse from Paul over multiple emails, my condescending tone is what struck you, instead of the insults and trolling I received from Paul. Maybe if more people spoke up against this unhealthy environment and stood up with the victim instead of the aggressor there would be a better community all around. Thanks -- Vittorio
Le 5 juin 2024 10:20:47 GMT+03:00, Marton Balint <cus@passwd.hu> a écrit :
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
If you stop responding with mails on all FFmpeg mailing lists from now to indefinite time in future nothing of value would be lost.
Please reread what you wrote and appreciate the irony of the situation.
Needless to say, this is also going straight to CC :) Please just do better, I believe in you!
I find this last sentence quite condescending, something you would tell your kid.
I understand your viewpoint though I don't necessarily agree with it. But by reacting *only* to Vittorio trying to defend himself and explicitly (and ineffectively) asking for help from the CC, you look like you are attacking the victim and defending the troll. Paul does *not* get a free pass to do whatever he wants even if he has been one of the most prolific contributors to this project.
Le 5 juin 2024 12:18:57 GMT+03:00, "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@remlab.net> a écrit :
But by reacting *only* to Vittorio trying to defend himself and explicitly (and ineffectively) asking for help from the CC, you look like you are attacking the victim and defending the troll.
I should have said "the one doing the trolling". But whatever, the CC is free to ban me for calling someone a troll.
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 11:31 AM Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi@remlab.net> wrote:
Le 5 juin 2024 12:18:57 GMT+03:00, "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@remlab.net> a écrit :
But by reacting *only* to Vittorio trying to defend himself and explicitly (and ineffectively) asking for help from the CC, you look like you are attacking the victim and defending the troll.
I should have said "the one doing the trolling". But whatever, the CC is free to ban me for calling someone a troll.
I'm so devastated by you and others calling me a troll. I will remove myself from this place of abyss immediately.
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 12:31:28PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le 5 juin 2024 12:18:57 GMT+03:00, "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <remi@remlab.net> a écrit :
But by reacting *only* to Vittorio trying to defend himself and explicitly (and ineffectively) asking for help from the CC, you look like you are attacking the victim and defending the troll.
I should have said "the one doing the trolling". But whatever, the CC is free to ban me for calling someone a troll.
You said something, others said something. Some people want to use somethings to have others banned. I dont think thats what the CC is there for. The goal of the CC is not to ban people, but to make people work together AND by happy while doing so! (Above is my own, and only my oppinion.) thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding go out to meet it. -- Thucydides
On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 2:07 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 12:31:28PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le 5 juin 2024 12:18:57 GMT+03:00, "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <
remi@remlab.net> a écrit :
But by reacting *only* to Vittorio trying to defend himself and explicitly (and ineffectively) asking for help from the CC, you look like you are attacking the victim and defending the troll.
I should have said "the one doing the trolling". But whatever, the CC is free to ban me for calling someone a troll.
You said something, others said something. Some people want to use somethings to have others banned. I dont think thats what the CC is there for.
Not quite, we were talking about booths, and Paul started throwing insults at me and bringing up stuff which the CC did temp-ban people in the past for. Let's try and avoid being revisionist about the past and pick on the victim here.
The goal of the CC is not to ban people, but to make people work together AND by happy while doing so!
This is wishful thinking, Just a reminder of https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1: the goal of the CC is to "arbitrage and make decisions when inter-personal conflicts occur in the project. It will decide quickly and take actions, for the sake of the project." I agree that a ban should be the last resort, but if people are allowed to throw insults and see no repercussions, I really don't see how you can make people work together and happily so. Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but your interpretation of the role of the CC seems naive at most and ineffective at best, and I worry about your role in the CC if you're effectively granting these toxic elements a pass for their negative behavior, just because you need to make everybody happy. -- Vittorio
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
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 5:47 PM Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
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.
Sure I'm happy to work on this with you! Let's talk offline about it
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'd say we should try and lay down the basic rules for booths and ffmpeg representations in general, get the approval from GA and see if they can be applied to IBC. Then we can set up some time at vdd as retro if successful or think of something else if the drama continues maybe. Thanks for helping with this complicated situation. -- Vittorio
On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 08:24:57PM +0200, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 5:47 PM Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
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.
Sure I'm happy to work on this with you! Let's talk offline about it
Why should discussions about a FFmpeg booth be offline ? thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness. -- Aristotle
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 8:50 AM Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
Am 02.06.24 um 22:14 schrieb Tomas Härdin:
sön 2024-06-02 klockan 20:01 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
Hi
On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 05:19:26PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
[...]
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events.
Also reasonable. I could help man a booth at IBC or any other event in Europe
Iam strongly in favor of that! Though i have no idea about cost (for IBC) which probably requires someone to sponsor a booth if its not free. Or any details. But i think its probably best if you mail thilo as he was helping with FFmpeg presence on many european booths
Attending is free, so I expect booths cost quite a bit to make up the costs. There's an inquiry form on the IBC website. Can't hurt to ask
Hotels aren't cheap as Rémi points out. Last time I attended IBC we had to get a hotel in Harlem. Luckily I know some people in Amsterdam
We have a booth on IBC this year which again gets sponsored so no costs for FFmpeg.
TIL! No intent of drama or stifle personal action, 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? -- Vittorio
mån 2024-06-03 klockan 08:50 +0200 skrev Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg- devel:
Am 02.06.24 um 22:14 schrieb Tomas Härdin:
sön 2024-06-02 klockan 20:01 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
Hi
On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 05:19:26PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
[...]
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events.
Also reasonable. I could help man a booth at IBC or any other event in Europe
Iam strongly in favor of that! Though i have no idea about cost (for IBC) which probably requires someone to sponsor a booth if its not free. Or any details. But i think its probably best if you mail thilo as he was helping with FFmpeg presence on many european booths
Attending is free, so I expect booths cost quite a bit to make up the costs. There's an inquiry form on the IBC website. Can't hurt to ask
Hotels aren't cheap as Rémi points out. Last time I attended IBC we had to get a hotel in Harlem. Luckily I know some people in Amsterdam
We have a booth on IBC this year which again gets sponsored so no costs for FFmpeg. Some details are still unclear which is why it's not yet announced.
Alright, cool /Tomas
mån 2024-06-03 klockan 08:50 +0200 skrev Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg- devel:
Am 02.06.24 um 22:14 schrieb Tomas Härdin:
sön 2024-06-02 klockan 20:01 +0200 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
Hi
On Sat, Jun 01, 2024 at 05:19:26PM +0200, Tomas Härdin wrote:
[...]
* Fund professional real live presence on multimedia / FOSS / buisness related events.
Also reasonable. I could help man a booth at IBC or any other event in Europe
Iam strongly in favor of that! Though i have no idea about cost (for IBC) which probably requires someone to sponsor a booth if its not free. Or any details. But i think its probably best if you mail thilo as he was helping with FFmpeg presence on many european booths
Attending is free, so I expect booths cost quite a bit to make up the costs. There's an inquiry form on the IBC website. Can't hurt to ask
Hotels aren't cheap as Rémi points out. Last time I attended IBC we had to get a hotel in Harlem. Luckily I know some people in Amsterdam
We have a booth on IBC this year which again gets sponsored so no costs for FFmpeg. Some details are still unclear which is why it's not yet announced.
@Thomas: Happy you want to attend, I'll keep you updated.
Update: I probably won't be able to attend due to a scheduling conflict /Tomas
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:49:58PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too late
Unless there's a better place to put these, I plan to reply to this message whenever I notice someone bring up something that seems relevant. Hopefully it will be a good reference if and when the time comes. Sebastian Ramacher recently said this in another thread[1]:
Maintainers and developers of reverse dependencies repeatedly ask for upgrade guides that go beyond "use this function instead"
This strikes me as an excellent bit of boring-but-important STF work. The bug reports in that e-mail make it relatively easy to quantify impact - measure the number of breakages in each revision, make a chart of numbers over time, agree a target number for next time. [1] https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-June/328852.html
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too late
I propose that if we have the oppertunity again next year to receive a grant from STF. That we use it to fund:
[...]
Hi, Am 17.05.24 um 15:49 schrieb Michael Niedermayer: the trac page for the STF 2025 application is available: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/SponsoringPrograms/STF/2025 If you want to propose a project, add it to the end of the page. Include an overview, a developer to work on it (most likely yourself), a duration and the milestones together with corresponding deliverables. There is a template, look at the 2024 page if you're unsure. We should finalize the discussion about proposed projects and create the application before end of the year, so that STF can start looking at our proposal first thing in 2025. Thanks, Thilo
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024, 18:12 Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel, < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
Hi,
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early
Am 17.05.24 um 15:49 schrieb Michael Niedermayer: than too late
I propose that if we have the oppertunity again next year to receive a
from STF. That we use it to fund:
[...]
grant the trac page for the STF 2025 application is available:
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/SponsoringPrograms/STF/2025
If you want to propose a project, add it to the end of the page. Include an overview, a developer to work on it (most likely yourself), a duration and the milestones together with corresponding deliverables. There is a template, look at the 2024 page if you're unsure.
We should finalize the discussion about proposed projects and create the application before end of the year, so that STF can start looking at our proposal first thing in 2025.
Thanks, Thilo
This page is empty
Hi On Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 09:58:14PM -0100, Kieran Kunhya via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024, 18:12 Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel, < ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
Hi,
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early
Am 17.05.24 um 15:49 schrieb Michael Niedermayer: than too late
I propose that if we have the oppertunity again next year to receive a
from STF. That we use it to fund:
[...]
grant the trac page for the STF 2025 application is available:
https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/SponsoringPrograms/STF/2025
If you want to propose a project, add it to the end of the page. Include an overview, a developer to work on it (most likely yourself), a duration and the milestones together with corresponding deliverables. There is a template, look at the 2024 page if you're unsure.
We should finalize the discussion about proposed projects and create the application before end of the year, so that STF can start looking at our proposal first thing in 2025.
Thanks, Thilo
This page is empty
Its not litterally empty, it contains templates and description how to add entries. But no entries. its a publically editable wiki. Any FFmpeg developer can add an entry Last year I, Thilo and Pierre (and probably others) worked on and pushed for STF sponsonsoring to happen. You know pushed people to add entries and added entries myself so the minimum threashold was reached Spend lots of time that was intended to be "not ffmpeg time" on doing the work. And then was accused of "things", thilo was accused too. I think Pierre saw us being accused and didnt want to become the next one. I think Niklas wants to continue doing swscale work in 2025 with STF but he hasnt added an entry yet. Maybe as some of the 2024 STF work got delayed and took longer, i dont know. That said, i would very much welcome Thilo and Pierre to manage this. But it does require people to propose some projects. It also would benefit from a friendlier environment. Besides this maybe people can use sozial media and twitter to remind all ffmpeg developers to add entries to the STF 2025 wiki page. Otherwise it will be STF 2026 and nothing in 2025 thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Homeopathy is like voting while filling the ballot out with transparent ink. Sometimes the outcome one wanted occurs. Rarely its worse than filling out a ballot properly.
participants (12)
-
Andrew Sayers -
Cosmin Stejerean -
Derek Buitenhuis -
Kieran Kunhya -
Marton Balint -
Michael Niedermayer -
Paul B Mahol -
Ronald S. Bultje -
Rémi Denis-Courmont -
Thilo Borgmann -
Tomas Härdin -
Vittorio Giovara