[FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch

[softworkz .]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel-bounces at ffmpeg.org> On Behalf Of Michael
> Niedermayer
> Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2025 01:22
> To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches <ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org>
> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] The "bad" Patch
> 
> On Sat, May 31, 2025 at 05:34:14PM +0000, softworkz . wrote:
> > CONCLUSIONS
> > ===========
> >
> > Meanwhile it should have become clear that this conversation is not about
> > whether the 15/15 patchset gets or should have gotten included or not.
> > It's about the things that happened around it and how they happened:
> >
> > => False statements like I would have pushed without addressing all reviews
> >
> > => A patch that was quickly brandmarked even though almost nobody had looked
> at it
> >    without any discussion and assessment
> >
> > => Claims like "softworkz is pushing bad patches"
> >
> > => softworkz shouldn't have been given commit rights
> >
> > => it's the worst patchset in the history of the project
> >
> >
> > That chain of events is what is just not acceptable.
> > It is in no way adequate or appropriate.
> >
> > Everybody who has been part of that chain should think about this.
> > I'm sure that many didn't have the intention to achieve this outcome.
> >
> > But unfortunately, there's one or another who has worked on moving this
> > forward in a way to achieve that outcome exactly.
> > To those persons, I want to be very clear: Trying those things on me will
> > never work out, as I will always try 10 times harder against it and the
> > result for those will be very different and more impactful in case anybody
> > would ever try again to strategically and purposefully and against better
> > knowledge defame or discredit me.
> >
> >
> > I don't want all this. I don't want to deal with such things, I just want
> > to collaborate in a friendly and professional way. Anybody - without
> > exception - who is getting back to me in a friendly way will receive a
> > friendly response, no matter what happened yesterday. I have no hard
> feelings
> > in this at all - it's just work and it has been pretty annoying that
> > I had to write all those messages. Still, I cannot leave all those untrue
> > statements lying around without context.
> >
> > You will see a number of messages which are linking to this conversation
> > from other conversations. I apologize in advance for that spam, but it
> > wasn't me who created the situation.
> 
> Not sure if 90% of people agree or 90% disagree with me but
> Id like you to be in the next community committee. (together with marth64)
> 
> Because it seems you seriously care about stoping defamations and the
> general sozial backstabbing that has appeared in the recent decade
> 
> and also documenting precissely what everyone said.
> 
> Just seems these attributes would be valuable for the community committee
> 

Hi Michael,

thanks a lot for the friendly words. Essentially, I do care about community 
behavior and even more about being truthful and honest.
I'm not sure whether I would be a suitable member for the CC. I think these
positions need to occupied by persons who are trusted by many in the 
community and I'm well aware that some have reservations towards me - which 
I can perfectly understand. I have been loud at times and voiced minority
opinions. Others may have longer lists 😊

In general, there are many qualities I have to offer, but I would say that
mediation and diplomatic negotiations are not in a top position there.
From what I've seen some of the current CC members writing, those guys are
much more suitable for the job than I would be.

But thanks for suggesting me,
sw