[FFmpeg-devel] Donations and what happens with them

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 06:16:23PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 03:12:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 01:48:29PM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:40:29PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
> > > > On 01/24/2011 08:33 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 05:07:42PM +0100, Benjamin Larsson wrote:
> > > > >> On 01/24/2011 04:45 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> But then one of the developers on my side told me he has been offered money
> > > > >>> to work for / join the new maintainers.
> > > > >>> From where is that money?
> > > > >>> from our foundation it seems
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'm not aware such events. Most likely not true. But how about we fund
> > > > >> you to keep working on your fork? I'm sure there are areas where we can
> > > > >> find an agreement for this to happen.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thats an odd offer in this thread, but what amount are we talking about?
> > > > 
> > > > Suggest a project to the foundation board and an amount that you think
> > > > is reasonable for the task.
> > > 
> > > I would suggest refactoring the motion estimation code as a project,
> > > it is old code that nobody dares touch.
> > 
> > Ive tried to clean it up already for free and i failed ...
> > The problem was that some changes that where needed to continue simply made
> > the code alot slower (yes its about gcc failing to optimize the code equally
> > well)
> > so after a few alternatives ive tried ive given up with a "fuck gcc"
> 
> motion_est.c is used for encoding only.  If a cleaned-up version turns
> out to be slower, this is something that can be tolerated up to a point.
> 
> > maybe gcc has improved but given the recent coup ill leave cleanup
> > of it to you, i dont feel like working for the new maintainers currently
> 
> Don't be silly, this is not about me vs. you and it's not to be done for
> me or a group of people, it's to be done for FFmpeg.  I'm not asking for
> a favor here either.  I'm suggesting a paid task that I would vote for
> as foundation board member if you were inclined to take it on.

My FFmpeg is happy with its motion_est.c.
And i dont see why the community would prefer a ffmpeg binary that is slower
and has a better formated source file that no user will ever see anyway.
The developers migh care abot cleaner API and faster compile but your
suggestion was oddly worded then

And i prefer to be silly and continue my civil disobedience against an
illegitimate takeover of ffmpeg
if you wanted to fork you could have and still can choose a new name.
And note i dont say i want you to fork, but if you choose to do it, then do it
properly please!
Ive seen people on IRC feel offended when i used the term "leader",
the offense is because your side has not switched to a different name.
I never meant to assert that iam the leader of the new maintainers.
id commit seppuku if i where that. And actually at this point maybe you should
consider that too? Id vote in the foundation to fund your burial

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

Those who are best at talking, realize last or never when they are wrong.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20110126/26476b72/attachment.pgp>