[FFmpeg-devel] Donations and what happens with them

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On 1/28/11, Reynaldo H. Verdejo Pinochet <reynaldo at opendot.cl> wrote:
> Hi guys
>
> Wanted to let this go without stepping in but started to feel uneasy
> about not saying what I think.
>
> On 01/27/2011 06:31 PM, compn wrote:
>>
>> so you guys want michael to not be leader.
>> and michael wants mans and diego to not be root if he is not leader.
>>
>> is that it basically? thats the entire list of demands on both sides ?
>> doesnt seem so bad.
>
> At the risk of oversimplifying I tend to agree with you here. It
> gets quite hard to get things straight while trying to dissect all the
> flaming that has been going on. That been said I wanted to state that
> having spoken privately with some on both sides of this history I feel
> a consensus can be reached and the newly imposed system be modified some
> to meet those simple demands. I have deeply enjoyed lurking around both
> projects, specially for the chance to learn a few bits from many
> I deem far better developers than myself, I would deeply regret seen
> anyone leave out of feeling abused or ignored by the way things were
> and/or the way things end up being so I'm hoping we can find a way
> out of this mess, yes, 'mess'. The current state of affairs, as
> productive as the numbers seem to support is still a situation in
> which long time friends/coworkers are fighting over at least some
> details that can be trade out in the search of a saner environment
> to hack on. We used to have a dictatorship in place here in Chile
> and while little was known about those who were dying on the streets
> you heard a lot about the economy reaching high blue marks, it's quite
> faster to go wherever you might be heading when you don't feel you
> need to listen those who are left behind. But faster, isn't always
> better.
>
> Maybe get Michael in the Reviewers^^Patch Monkeys team? It's hard
> to find a technical reason for him not to be among you guys and as
> you have explained it is a _technical_ position. He wouldn't be more
> of a leader than any of you just because he can actually commit. Then
> set a ground rule on anyone from that team not respecting the proposed
> review process to be kicked out. By the way, horizontal power structures
> aren't all that common in successful management, new leaders tend to
> arise no matter how hard you try dampening the process, I understand
> that was how Michael reached the position he hold till you took
> power.
>

I just like to point out few things.
I could not find the exact mail with the promotion, but you can still
see on the sourceforge.net site (if it works, there was recent attack
on it), that Michael is still project admin, like Bellard. It gives
him control over creating and revoking developers access.  I'm not
sure when he got it, but I remember it was  lightning fast, almost the
same year (Michael's first own commit is from February 2002. I don't
even see Mans in the list of developers).

Also, Michael got vote of confidence just 2 months ago. Even the
current "revolutionaries" voted to keep him. Indeed at the time I
though that "follow same rules as everybody else" was about the rules.
Now I realize it was "he can remain leader, as long as he doesn't act
as leader". (And then accuse him that he is not leading the project
anywhere.)

A lot, if not all of current unrest comes from the fact that power was
abused. (Imagine sf.net server admins doing the same, it would be the
end of sourceforge.)
If so many people were really against Michael, they could have easily
voted him down. They could have done it and after the coup, but
"voting doesn't work" for them.
It is a military coup, these who had power abused it and took what
they wanted, now nobody have the power to remove them. And the worst
thing is that there are too many good people who have accepted their
propaganda for true.