[FFmpeg-devel] Democratic election of the server admins

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 04:53:42PM -0700, Baptiste Coudurier wrote:
> On 7/3/10 3:48 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> Hello thouse who rule, thouse who are all the developers of ffmpeg.
>>
>> I belive that ffmpeg as fundamentally democratic project should 
>> democratically
>> elect its server administrators once per year
>> The process described here is just intended for the first such election 
>> and
>> can itself be changed by vote of the ffmpeg developers in any way and
>> at any time the ffmpeg developers see fit. I would though ask that 
>> irrelevant
>> bikesheds be done after this years election.
>>
>> Currently, there are 3 root administrators on mphq (attila, diego and 
>> mans)
>> They have gotten their positions though volunteering when admins where 
>> needed.
>> attila has physical access to the server and takes care of things that
>> require physical access. Diego and Attila take care of MPlayer related 
>> tasks
>> while Diego and Mans take care of ffmpeg related tasks.
>> As attila is difficult to replace (as he is the only one with physical
>> access and we need such a person) and also that he has done an outstanding
>> and flawless job besides being more mplayer admin than ffmpeg admin, i do 
>> not
>> list him in this election. But i would like to emphasize that if any 
>> single
>> developer wants to include attilas position in a vote, iam ready to change
>> this and include him.
>
> No objection.
>

>> * no overmajority, quorum or other aditional limits shall be present.
>
> Can you please clarify ?
>

the schultze methode works fine without artificial limits and majority
requirements imposed besides its simpler and we lack an implementation of it.



> > [...]
> >
>> * Past years admins may nominate themselfs again indefinitly, allthough it 
>> is
>>    recommanded that they do not if other good and trustworthy candidates 
>> are
>>    available to give them a chance too.
>
> IMHO this is left to the voters' decision. A great admin should be able to 
> continue doing his great job indefinitely.

if removing that point is prefered i am perfectly fine with that


>
>> * The admins manage the repository accounts in accordance to the 
>> decissions of
>>    the project leader. In case of disagreement disputed accounts shall be
>>    closed, and immedeatly afterwards public discussion and if needed a 
>> vote
>>    shall be held to resolve the disagrement.
>
> I don't agree with that. Svn write access should be given and removed based 
> on a decision or vote  by at least a few maintainers including the project 
> leader.

ultimately the admins must make the change in the files
anyway i dont really care about the details, just that if someone breaks
half of the rules and people actually consider it wrong as well and that the
developer refuses to undo the change that there exist the ability to do
something about it not to be forced in complicated internal fights with an
admin team. Or to end in a commit war.

Besides totally off topic, but another problem is that in the past developers
have suggested on the public ffmpeg-dev list that person X should get a svn
account, this way of doing it has the great disadvantage that it is hard to
reply with "no", its kinda unfriendly to that person.


[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I wish the Xiph folks would stop pretending they've got something they
do not.  Somehow I fear this will remain a wish. -- M?ns Rullg?rd
-------------- 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/20100704/e03cf454/attachment.pgp>