[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] the future of libamr

[Diego Biurrun]

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:11:58PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 6/9/2009 5:47 AM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 03:43:34PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >> On 6/8/2009 2:17 PM, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 02:08:17PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> >>>> Hell, no, that's exactly the point. Nobody will "reimplement" something
> >>>> that works because of FFmpeg's own interest, except one FFmpeg
> >>>> developper or one developper from GSOC which was paid thanks to FFmpeg.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now one company gratefully funded HE-AAC after the project was started
> >>>> and left over from GSOC, that's great and I wish there would be more,
> >>>> however it's not done yet, I hope it will be soon, but I don't think
> >>>> removing libfaad did all help on this, it's still there in the tree and
> >>>> hopefully it is otherwise you couldn't decode HE-AAC.
> >>> You are confused.  libfaad was never removed.  Robert asked to keep it.
> >>> HE-AAC was not a leftover from GSoC, regular AAC decoding was.  HE-AAC
> >>> is being sponsored despite the fact that libfaad decodes it perfectly.
> >>> Robert was also funded to get the SoC regular AAC decoder into FFmpeg.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> However you seem to be missing my point.
> >> Yes it wasn't removed and because it was _not_, it tends to show that
> >> it's not necessary nor helping to _remove_ it. That's an argument in
> >> favor of _not_ removing libamr wrapper for WB encoding.
> > 
> > I disagree, let's leave it at that.
> 
> Being against the _facts_ is weird IMHO.

I could say the same, we interpret the facts differently.

> >>>> I think many developers could be and IMHO should be representative of
> >>>> FFmpeg credibility. In case you didn't get it, I'll make it clear this
> >>>> time: replace "myself" by "us". Thanks for your understanding.
> >>> You seem to misunderstand what I am talking about.  When I deal with
> >>> license violators, the credibility of other individual devs is not on
> >>> the line.  It's just me personally and the project as a whole.
> >> I completely understand what you are talking about, and IMHO issues
> >> should be dealt in the name of FFmpeg, the project, if you wish you
> >> include yourself and I wish to be included as well, I think you should
> >> use "us".
> > 
> > You don't understand what I am trying to say here.  This is not at all
> > about me using "us" or "me".  I speak in the name of FFmpeg (using "us"
> > and "we") when dealing with license violators.  Let me try again to get
> > my point across.  Hopefully with more success this time around.
> > 
> > When I contact company X, then I do so speaking as an individual in the
> > name of a project.  Other individuals, say Mike Melanson or Benjamin
> > Larsson, are not directly involved, only indirectly because they, too,
> > belong to the FFmpeg project.
> > 
> > So when I have a credibility problem, the FFmpeg project also has a
> > credibility problem, but neither Benjamin nor Mike have a direct
> > credibility problem.  They are not in direct contact, their names are
> > not directly on the line.
> 
> You don't understand what I am trying to say here. This is about "you"
> using "I" instead of "we". This is not about "you" having a credibility
> problem if that is so, it is about "FFmpeg".
> 
> When you are speaking on behalf of FFmpeg, I think you should always use
> "we" and "us".

I understand your point perfectly, but it does not apply.  Even when I
communicate with violators as "we", I am still an individual.  An
individual in representation of a group, but still an individual.
As such, it is my credibility that is on the line.

Rest assured that I know when to use which personal pronoun when
communicating with license violators.

Diego