[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] web: Donations and leaks

[Stefano Sabatini]

On date Friday 2011-12-09 12:34:46 -0500, compn encoded:
[...]
> i couldnt get ffmtech to even talk to me about buying a $100-$200 2tb
> incoming hard drive for mplayer+ffmpeg. even after inquiries spanning
> months to multiple people and mailing lists, irc channels, including
> private emails and chats to benjamin larsson, ronald, diego and
> possibly another that i forgot. i dont want to put blame on
> individuals, the entire organization is at fault for not having good
> communication.
> 
> nor could i get ffmtech to compensate martin for his 'sponsored'
> one-line bug fix. i think the proposal i submitted was actually voted
> on and declined. what is ffmtech saving its money for if not
> compensating for development?
> 
> whatever communications they have are secret even to other developers
> within the projects. this is terrible because developers are the best
> people to ask for what needs to be done in the projects. communications
> with the public for sponsored tasks or sponsorship requests/ideas are
> non existent. trying to get ffmtech to sponsor its own website
> administration (ffmtech.org is still dead) instead of relying on
> donated time by developers has also fallen on deaf ears.
> 
> i had trouble getting replies from ffmtech board applicants to
> answer some questions of mine reguarding how they would communicate and
> sponsor tasks if elected.
> 
> alex converse answered my question in a private mail:
> 
> On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:22:28 -0700, Alex Converse wrote:
> >Here is my proposals plan: Have the person requesting funding send a
> >detailed proposal with like shown above with a cost and a timeline
> >attached to me or to libav-devel. I will present it to the board and
> >make sure it gets voted on.
> >
> >I think sending proposals to both lists should be sufficient to get
> >them noticed. I don't think adding a separate proposals list or bug
> >tracker is necessary but if you have a compelling argument why it
> >should be done I will listen.
> 
> and yet, my other ideas have not been acted upon or replied to, even
> when posted to the mailing list. nor has anyone asked me about my
> previous proposals and ideas. like compensating ruby for his j2k work
> due to GSoC communication problems.
> 
> there is no public forum for ffmtech board questions and my mail was
> rejected from the Ffmtech-board-election at ffmpeg.org mailing list.
> michael also had trouble posting his question/proposal to ffmtech (i'm
> guessing rejected due to being a moderated list) :
> 
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 22:37:24 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >The reason for this late proposal is because i did not know there
> >where just 9 candidates until recently and because i tried
> >to mail that suggestion to the election ML unsuccessfully.
> 
> --------
> 
> to summarize, i object to anyone suggesting ffmtech is a useful
> donation for the ffmpeg project due to it's past and current
> communication problems.
> 
> even if they told me all my ideas were crap, i would say that at least
> they fixed their communications problem.

Hi,

me and Reimar are members of the FFmtech board, so you can directly
contact us in case you have proposals for the foundation.

Right now the foundation communication status is pretty poor (no
website, no public proceedings, no defined way to post proposals, no
list of donors, no easy way to donate etc. etc.), this needs to be
fixed and we're working on that, feel free to ask me if you need more
information.

For what regards the proposals, I agree with what Alex wrote in his
mail, you can either send a mail to one or both MLs (ffmpeg-devel /
libav-devel) specifying *explicitely* that you're proposing a task, or
directly contact one member of the foundation (I prefer the public
approach wherever sensible, so the proposal can be publically
discussed before being voted by the board).
-- 
FFmpeg = Frenzy and Furious Multimedia Patchable Excellent Gadget