[FFmpeg-devel] Voting committee

[Yayoi Ukai]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Nicolas George <george at nsup.org> wrote:
> Le nonidi 29 fructidor, an CCXXIII, Yayoi Ukai a écrit :
>> > Thanks. You are right, this was imprecise. I meant linear combination with
>> > total coefficients one; barycenter in other words. For example: 10 commits
>> > are ok, 20 devel mails are ok, then 5 commits and 10 devel mails are ok too.
>> >
>> > Of course, the value I have put are rather arbitrary. Please people feel
>> > free to propose other values.
>>
>> Yes. There is an value and I will explain why later.
>>
>> Well, unfortunately I couldn't quite understand after a certain point
>> the point you tried to make
>> but I would say don't worry about it. I mean you have been
>> contributing more than... so many years..
>> of course what you really care would be respected. I am sure.
> <snip>
>
> I am really sorry, I read your mail several times and I do not understand
> how it relates to mine.

I am sorry you needed to read it several times....

I wanted to say was..

1. I understood that voting committee there to resolve some
conflict/decide on policy that can not be agreed on normal email discussion
and not the means to replace the leadership..(So I understood more
like a court system
not the congress or president..I guess congress is still email list
and president may still be
Michael (I mean technically he resigned it so maybe it is void right
now. I actually don't know))

2. It means that if your voice was not considered fairly in the even of the
dispute because..

a. "important/voting" developer decided to ignore or didn't
acknowledge your opinion even
when you are in the middle of the dispute.

b.  All of the rest of the "important/voting" developers decided to
treat your opinion unfairly
(maybe it need to define 'unfair'... technical evaluation by committee
is not clear/enough etc..)

c.  you were not in the voting committee

But I haven't observe that many dispute so I guess it needs to be
handled case by case
and voting committee is just a first step?
So i thought that if it is handled case by case, I would genuinely surprise that
people just ignore you.....

I mean you have to pick one system or the other for deciding..

Also, I feel like it would be good to have leadership discussion may
be helpful??
So that you can kind avoid the dispute to begin with? (People already
agree on overall
direction and how things are run in general, it is easier to resolve
then by waiting
someone gets angry or unhappy or start the dispute? Do you have that
kind of system
currently in placed?? I guess your guys talk every once in a while?)


>
> Was something I wrote disparaging for Outreachy? I am not aware of it, but
> if so, please point it to me.

 As I wrote in the other email, no. Not you. I am sorry for the confusion again.

 I thought that I read some email in the discussion in the past that
made me felt
 that it was a bit disparaging for Outreachy before.
 But at that time, I didn't really consider myself part of this group.
So i didn't say anything.
And now I looked for the email and I couldn't find it.  So I must have
been mistaken, misread etc..
(And even if I found it, it was a long time ago anyways)


>
> Or do you think that the voting rules I proposed make FFmpeg as a project
> less inclusive? Then can you suggest how to amend them?

I don't think so. I think your proposal is good but for me actually
all sounds reasonable to me..
(I mean you got pick one and see from it there right and no system is
going to be perfect anyways.)

Maybe you want to talk more on the leadership as well? How overall the
group is run?


>
> Or... really, I can not see what. Sorry.

ah,,, I am really sorry that I confused you!!

I wish the best of the luck of that you are content with the system or
decision that people come up with in the future!!



>
> Regards,
>
> --
>   Nicolas George
>
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>