[FFmpeg-devel] Democratization

[Soft Works]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of
> Nicolas George
> Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2025 9:51 PM
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-
> devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Democratization
> 
> Michael Niedermayer (12025-01-21):
> > You have worded this well
> 
> Thanks (assuming you are not saying it to the “+1”).
> 
> > Id like to add that this matches my understanding of what
> maintainers should
> > be. (actual "leaders" in their areas)
> >
> > As side effect this would make things more scaleable too.
> 
> Indeed. But I do not think FFmpeg is big enough to require this kind
> of
> scalability yet.

When considering scalability in a sense that not everything should land on Michael's plate, then I do think it is required.

Yet the idea I was heading for something else that I hadn't detailed further. More specifically it would mean to 

- Dissolve the TC
- Install a number of "Positions" or "Roles" instead
- People can volunteer and apply or campaign for those positions
- And get elected by the community for a certain period (like 2 or 4 years)
- One person can apply and be elected for a single position only
- Roles could be technical or organizational
  - Technical Positions
    - are above maintainers and can overrule them
    - are overseeing maintainers
    - are responsible for making sure submissions get reviewed by maintainers,
      review submissions by themselves or both
    - are bound to a certain area (codecs, formats, filters, tools or similar)
  - Organizational Positions
    - for things like maintaining infrastructure, financial matters, 
      community management, etc.
- Finally, there needs to be one on top of the technical positions who
  has the last say. There can be only one captain on a boat and there
  are very good reasons why every boat has a captain. A boat where each
  decision would be subject to voting from the crew would never arrive at
  its destination. 

No need to bite into details. The primary point I want to make is that the installment of the TC (and GA and CC) just focuses on a single aspect: the delegation of rights to make decisions. And that's not a sane nor effective way to bring the project forward. If somebody wants to play a role in the project and have the right to make decisions, they also need to actively fulfill such a role, which comes not only with rights but also with responsibility and obligations - like in any other kind of organization in the world, no matter whether it's business, non-profit or community driven. 

> That authority should be you. You had it and you made an excellent
> job
> of it. You just need to accept that it is not possible to please, and
> to
> realize that the people who do not take it with grace 

My vote would go on Michael as well, but it cannot mean doing all the work alone and all decisions alone. It requires a stable and efficient organization and collaboration of a team of people, where it just happens rarely that overruling is needed.

Giving the GA an ability to appeal a decision would still be a reasonable element on top.

sw