[MPlayer-cvslog] r26411 - trunk/libmpdemux/demuxer.c

[Ivan Kalvachev]

On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Michael Niedermayer <michaelni at gmx.at> wrote:
> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 06:25:35PM +0200, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
>> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 05:21:59PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> > On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 04:27:50PM +0300, Ivan Kalvachev wrote:
>> > > Reimar, please take the Project Leader role and resolve the situation
>> > > in the way you like it.
>> >
>> > yes, seconded, and my emphasis is on _resolve_. Not the "playing deaf" diego
>> > does, the leader should make clear statements, not selective silence.
>>
>> I am not a fan of clear statements since my opinions are not clear.
>> But if that is what most desire I will try my best.
>> And since my opinion and clear statements are asked for:
>>
>> > democracy yes or no democracy?
>>
>> No democracy. Consensus must be the goal, if that is unreachable voting
>> will not fix anything, in particular not if the voting procedure -
>> whichever is chosen - can be disputed with good reasons.
>
> What is consensus?
>
> Does a 70% majority imply consensus?
> a 90% majority?
> can a single developer veto a consensus?
> can 2?
>
> How do we determine that a consensus has been reached?
> Is diego to be the one to determine it based on his personal oppinion?
>
> Democracy means "rule by the people", no democracy means the opposite, that
> is that someone or something else than the people rules.
>
> You say "no democracy" but at the same time you speak of a vague alternative
> as if it was exactly democracy.
>
> democracy does not implicate voting. Just that the final decission is made
> by the people.
>
> I will reformulate my question, do you want mplayer to be ruled by all
> the mplayer developers?

I think that the definition of consensus is even more strict than of
majority vote. Consensus requires 100% agreement among all
participants.

We do need some form of fairness.

Authoritarian rule "could" be the most effective form on government.
However it is also most vulnerable to abuse of power, that promotes
conflicts and quick decline (turns into dictatorship).

The democracy is a feedback method that ensures that the power won't
be abused. (This is why democracies are more stable, but are still
vulnerable to slow degradation).

If the project leader doesn't ignore developers opinion based on some
frivolous criteria and if there is no abuse of power, we may never
need to vote.
But we still need some way to control and prevent abuse.


[...]
>> > or is the line based on diegos personal feeling? He once wanted to close
>> > ivans ffmpegs svn account (that was around the time when he also wanted to
>> > close all doc maintainers access to ffmpeg svn), its in strong contrast
>> > to how uoti is treated.
>>
>> I think that was just an attempt to separate FFmpeg and MPlayer commit
>> rights. Nevertheless I would appreciate if Diego and Ivan could find an
>> agreement that goes beyond Ivan criticizing at length everything Diego
>> does suboptimally and Diego ignoring Ivan's (except for the insistence)
>> largely correct criticism, one behaviour amplifying the other...
>
> ivan and diego should meet each other in person, i belive that would help
> resolve their disagreements.

Please, think of the planet. This is going to either bring new Ice Age
or cause Flame War big enough to melt down all ice on the planet (or
both ;)
I don't think that meeting in person could resolve our conflict.

I'm sure that if there is arbiter respected by both of us and there is
no more abuse of power then the conflict could just go away. I'd like
things resolved on the logic of arguments, not based on who is telling
them.

I wonder if Diego have ever thought of following my advices as way to
end the conflict. If an advice turns out to be bad (or worse) then I
would have to stop giving more of them :P