[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] About committership

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:09:06AM -0500, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> let's not make this a terribly long thread, and therefore focus on
> your core point only:
> 
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Stefano Sabatini
> <stefano.sabatini-lala at poste.it> wrote:
> > And finally my proposal: to review the committership mechanism, I
> > propose to restore the previous model, to give back commit rights to
> > all the developers and enforce *via policy* some of the new rules, for
> > example to require the approvation of non-controversial patches from
> > at least another developer with expertise in the area. The queueing
> > mechanism looks *good* and may be extended to all the developers.
> 
> What do you want to achieve by doing this?
> - are we not committing your patches fast enough?
> - do you feel like you lost control over your subsystem?
> - do you feel like we bully you or veto your patches?
> - something else?

not sure about others but, you illegitimatly took over resources like a server
that where donated.
I request again, pick a new name, a new domain, a new server and annouce a fork
Also i request again the roots to resign after this abuse of power. Completely
bypassing public discussion and a vote and to the day keeping alot of
discussions secret and pointing all over the place when people post parts of
the discussion as if such takeover would constitue private communication

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

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your
right to say it. -- Voltaire
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20110202/d35bb738/attachment.pgp>