[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] drop support for using libav* compiled with mingw/cygwin in msvc

Michael Niedermayer michaelni
Wed Feb 27 04:19:14 CET 2008

On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 01:54:30AM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> >> In a group of intelligent people it is also much more difficult
> >> for a tyrant to gain foothold.
> >
> > I can not say that i agree or disagree here, just that i have some
> > doubt. Also the word "intelligent" is a little vague, what is intelligence?
> > I think that the word "educated" fits better.
> Educated implies intelligent, while the converse is not true.  An
> intelligent person is able to make rational decisions without being
> educated.  Education is nothing but a convenience.

Without knowledge an intelligent person cannot make a rational decission.

A person with some common sense and some knowledge/education can compare
a prospective leader against other people and situations he has
learnt about or that he can imagine. A person who is just intelligent
with no knowledge at all will not be aware of the risks of supporting
a likeable and charismatic person who promisses some things people want ...
An intelligent person might realize that there is a theoretic risk that
the person might missuse his future power, but so is there a risk in
crossing the street. Knowing if a rule based on the majority of people
aka democracy or monarchy or some other goverment form is best / safest /
... is not something a hyper intelligent liveform could decide without
at least some knowledge of humans and "power corrupts".

> >> In other words, by resorting to democratic processes, an
> >> intelligent group is likely to make worse decisions than had time
> >> been allowed for proper discussion and consensus-forming.
> >
> > I cannot follow your reasoning here ...
> When faced with a decision, it need not be immediately obvious to all
> involved, due to factors such as differing background knowledge, which
> alternative is the better.  If a vote is held, people are forced to
> make a choice, even if they have insufficient information available to
> make the best one (by whatever metric).  This essentially introduces a
> random element in the decision making process.  A thorough discussion
> allows people to consider aspects they may have been previously
> unaware of, and entirely new solutions may be discovered.  If memory
> serves, such things happen regularly around here.
> The less information the voting population has, the more random the
> outcome will be.  An extreme example is that of a modern country,
> where people on average have limited access to accurate information,
> while being bombarded with propaganda (the situation is worst among
> members of parliament).  This results in almost completely random
> decisions being made, and instead of the steady progress we like to
> imagine our society making, we get something best described as
> Brownian motion.  The situation is further worsened by the fact that
> the population rarely shares a common goal.

People can abstain from voting and voting does not preclude discussions.
It is just a tool to ensure that the consensus/majority is real and not
just some wish thinking of the one in charge ...
I do agree with the rest of what you said above though ...

> At the other extreme is a pure dictatorship, where one person alone
> makes all decisions.  In such a system, the dictator can cause rapid
> changes in whatever direction he chooses.  In practise, the desires of
> the dictator very rarely go beyond personal wealth, and quite often
> also involve the misery of the population at large.  In the eyes of
> the decision-maker, however, the system is highly efficient.

I think you primarely think of recent highly vissible dictatorships,
i am not an expert on history but i think there were a few "dictators"
who honestly tried to do the best for their people ...

> The FFmpeg project consists of intelligent people, all sharing the
> same goal (that of making FFmpeg better), and nobody (I hope) is in it
> for reasons of personal greed.  These are conditions in which voting
> should only be used as a last resort, when other attempts at
> reconciliation have failed.

As i said, i think voting is a simple way to check that there really
is a consensus and its not just 3 people who are loudest and currently
online on IRC with the rest just not caring enough to voice their oppinion.

> >> Who wants to join me in founding the Kingdom of FFmpeg?
> >
> > We all do, but we lack land and the ability to defend it. without these
> > 2 the local police would end our rule quite quickly. ;)
> I was thinking Oded would be able to supply some weapons, and we have
> a terrorist of our own as well. ;-)

I still think this wont be enough 
Though of course it depends on where we found the kingdom. If its within a
sparsly populated destabilized 3rd world country with no real military it
might work out for a while. ;)


Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

No great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness. -- Aristotle
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080227/c2596896/attachment.pgp>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list