[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] 5 year plan & Inovation

[Paul B Mahol]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:31 AM James Almer <jamrial at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/19/2024 7:28 PM, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:58 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> > vittorio.giovara at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 12:48 PM Ronald S. Bultje <rsbultje at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 2:06 PM Vittorio Giovara <
> >>> vittorio.giovara at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:00 AM Diederick C. Niehorster <
> >>>> dcnieho at gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> If i recall correctly, there was a conversation not too long ago
> >> about
> >>>> what
> >>>>> to do with all the SPI money. This seems to be a perfect use for it.
> >>>>> 1. Set up and manage a gitlab instance
> >>>>> 2. Move tickets from trac to there (possibly)
> >>>>> 3. Move fate running to there
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> +1
> >>>>
> >>>> Another good idea would be to show negative influences the door, and
> >> not
> >>>> being afraid to ban them when needed.
> >>>> Currently the CC is supposed to decide that but idk how many and which
> >>>> people have access to the mailing list control panel.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The CC does not have authority to permanently ban people. See (
> >>> https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Community-Committee-1): "The CC can
> >>> remove privileges of offending members, including [..] temporary ban
> from
> >>> the community. [..] Indefinite bans from the community must be
> confirmed
> >> by
> >>> the General Assembly, in a majority vote."
> >>>
> >>> Enough of us have access to the ML admin interface to assume this will
> >> not
> >>> be an issue.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks for the clarification, it's good to know. So correct me if I'm
> >> wrong, the theoretical banning process is that a repeated offender is
> >> reported enough times, the CC notices that the temporary bans have had
> no
> >> effects and decides to invoke the GA to confirm a ban?
> >>
> >
> > By that time, if not already, GA will be majority of active bots or
> > majority of active controlled figures.
>
> What bots? That makes no sense.
>

Current situation in FFmpeg makes no sense.
Could someone explain current FFmpeg situation?


>
> >
> > So in that hypothetical case, (I hope it does not happen), 0 transparency
> > and 0 innovations,
> > with questionable commits and contributors will remain in project, if not
> > already happening.
> >
> > Its 2024 year, and FFmpeg still does not have proper subtitle support.
> > I could continue writing and adding more to the list, but I'm very
> generous
> > today.
> >
> >
> >> --
> >> Vittorio
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> >> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> >> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> >> ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> > ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> > https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> >
> > To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> > ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
>
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
>