[FFmpeg-devel] FFmpeg, FFMtech Foundation and donations

Michael Niedermayer michaelni at gmx.at
Tue Jun 14 14:25:08 CEST 2011

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:22:46AM +0200, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Tuesday 2011-06-14 03:38:37 +0200, Michael Niedermayer encoded:
> > Hi
> > 
> > The foundation had 7 directors. 4 of which in january joined the
> > libav.org fork. The foundation thus had a narrow majority of libav
> > supporters.
> > 
> > on 19 Mar 2011,  6 directors where meeting on IRC and discussing how
> > the next board of directors should be elected, they decided that
> > "People who had svn accounts and were active in the last year are
> > allowed to vote, in case of contention the board can decide."
> > 
> > 
> > on 25 May, ben suggests that
> > "those who are eligible to vote are allowed to cast 3 votes for
> > those who they prefer to be on the board"
> > 
> > 
> > On the 8th Jun The election is announced to begin the next day with
> > the number of votes raised to 7 from 3 and the people allowed to
> > vote extended to include several
> > libav developers who where neither active nor had svn write accounts
> I supposed that the voting procedure and the list of voters was
> discussed and eventually voted by the board, surely they are not
> unimportant details.

voting procedure: No discussion nor vote i remember
(and i have some comments id like to make about the 7 vs 3 issue if
 there would be a chance to discuss it)

list of voters: there was the meeting in march where discussion and
vote did happen. Later when the actual list was available discussions
happened and some started voting on some people. But then things died
down and ben asked to be given rights to make the decission alone.
I told ben i trust him but abstained from supporting this.
after a few days i reluuctantly changed my vote to yes, as i did not
wish to block the foundation to move forward. It was claimed by ben
he had 2 somewhat positive replies, i do not know who that would
have been as i was not being CC-ed. I dont think there could have
been a proper majority here
And if still possible, after realizing the conflict of interrest i
withdraw my support for that of course.

Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Old school: Use the lowest level language in which you can solve the problem
New school: Use the highest level language in which the latest supercomputer
            can solve the problem without the user falling asleep waiting.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20110614/204fd5cf/attachment.asc>

More information about the ffmpeg-devel mailing list