[FFmpeg-devel] [VOTE] please vote for our NGO name

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 03:53:53PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 03:29:41PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 06:21:49AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 02:36:38PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:05:32PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:00:39AM +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Some of these objections are IMO valid, but the question is: why
> > > > > > didn't they have been arised when both the names and the voting
> > > > > > procedure was discussed?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1) I don't currently have time to reply to every email in realtime.
> > > > > 2) The objections *did* get raised, but were promptly ignored when the
> > > > >    voting started, i.e. all the bad names were put up as candidates.
> > > > 
> > > > You can express your objections in the vote like everyone else by ranking
> > > > names you object to worse than ones you do not object to.
> > > > 
> > > > Also suggesting another name required just 2 developers, this did not happen
> > > 
> > > False.
> > 
> > Which 2 developers did suggest which name, when and where that was not
> > considered?
> 
> Dominik proposed "Open Multimedia Technologies Foundation".  I liked it.

Iam happy to hear you did, but you havnt said so before and i cant read your
mind. Besides the suggestion was technically too late, also people could just
have voted for it anyway, no single person did. And no other person besides
you supported this name either so i really do not belive it would have won.
Also if you belive theres something wrong/ a farce/ ... or you think
"Open Multimedia Technologies Foundation" is better, or the name should be
finetuned, start a vote now. If you raise the issue after the registration
process started then its too late. That means you need to act before monday,
ronalds plan was to start this process monday but we can wait if an ffmpeg
developer raises an objection.


> 
> Where does this 2 number come from anyway?  This voting farce seems to
> spawn new regulations every five minutes.

From: "Ronald S. Bultje" <rsbultje at gmail.com>
To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at mplayerhq.hu>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 18:58:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] FFmpeg Foundation

Hi everyone,

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com> wrote:
> We haven't decided on a name
> yet, although people agree that we dislike "FFmpeg Foundation" - if
> you can suggest better names, please do so in this thread.

Today would be a great day to suggest names. We still haven't found
any good one and I'm planning to finish this by sometime next week,
which means I'll probably have to do a vote between the various
proposed names this weekend / early next week.

If you have a great name suggestion, please propose it here. Every
developer (a person with SVN access or regular + recent patch
contributions) may propose names, and to prevent this from becoming
one big mess, I'll ask that every proposed name is "me too'ed" by at
least one more developer.

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

I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not
approve, and what they approve I do not know. -- Epicurus
-------------- 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/20091219/6d32eca6/attachment.pgp>