[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] FFmpeg leader

Jason Garrett-Glaser darkshikari
Sat Oct 2 13:49:28 CEST 2010

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 12:39:11PM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> On date Saturday 2010-10-02 11:10:42 +0200, Reimar D?ffinger encoded:
>> > On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> > > I believe we agree that maintainers are free to apply patches on the
>> > > files they maintain, but in general there should be some exceptions to
>> > > this rule. Such exceptions may arise when:
>> > >
>> > > * the change affects the policy or the style of the project
>> > > * the change is no trivial, so it may benefit from peer-review
>> > > * the change affects other code not maintained by the committer *or*
>> > > ? the public interface
>> >
>> > Really, rules don't work here. It will just move the flaming to the
>> > interpretation of the rules.
>> > Of course we need some common view of how things should work in
>> > principle, but in the end the only thing that works is wanting
>> > to work together, taking into account criticism even if you think
>> > it goes too far without discussing forever who is right (unless
>> > you really think it goes far too far), and assuming the best intentions
>> > of the other side.
>> On the contrary I believe that would be important to settle the policy
>> once and for all, as one of the main reasons of this vote request is
>> related to policy violation and restrictions.
>> I believe most of us want Michael to stay as the project leader, and
>> we want Mans to continue to stay with his very much appreciated
>> contributions, so the problem is not related to the persons involved.
>> While I don't have nothing in particular to object to the FFmpeg
>> leader, I understand the point of Mans when he says that the leader
>> should abide the same rules that apply to the other developers, and I
>> can understand that this can't and shouldn't be literally true but
>> there should be some restrictions regarding his committing
> I asked several times, and i ask again
> which rule / part of the written policy has where been broken?
> now after mans you start discussing about policy violation, and i really
> think such accusation should be backed up by something

I've noticed a lot of stuff committed lately (per-codec parameters,
the assert changes, swscale API changes, etc) that happened without
any community discussion at all.  Many of these things are serious API
changes -- and even though everyone wants them, there should be
agreement before they are committed.

Dark Shikari

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list