[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] replace some static with asm_visibility or so

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 11:41:34AM +0100, Diego Biurrun wrote:
[...]
> > > MPlayer is not a democracy.  It used to be a dictatorship run by Arpi,
> > > nowadays decisions are taken based on consensus, for better or worse.
> > > That voting was a bad idea in the first place and it was never clear who
> > > should be allowed to vote on what grounds, but all of this is besides
> > > the point.
> > 
> > At the point where you claim that voting failed to reach the same result
> > as your consensus, you admit that your consensus is based on a selected
> > minority. That being fairly obvious per definition as the majority voted
> > differently.
> > And this is just another way of saying you acted based on your personal
> > oppinion not on what the majority wanted.
> > 
> > And yes you did call everyone on the phone back then and convinced us
> > its better the way you like it. But there was no second vote confirming
> > that new "consensus".
> 
> Having a vote to confirm a consensus is a contradiction in itself.
> 
> There is no doubt that the consensus was accepted, after all, the worst
> flaming in history suddenly died down.  If that is not a proof, nothing
> is.
> 
> I'll also have to note that the results of said vote, contrary to what
> you have claimed at various other points, were not unanimous[2].  You
> can chalk it up to bad memory or bad English, unanimous means no votes
> against.  This is not at all true.

I did NOT claim that the vote about closing uotis account was unanimous, there
was just a overwhelming majority to close it. What I did claim was that the
developers asked uoti unanimously to revert/correct his commit. At least on 
the mailinglist, i dont know what was said on IRC.


> 
> Also, when you say I acted based on my personal opinion, remember that
> the accusatory finger still points right back at you, who supported and
> announced the consensus.
> 
> > > In the end a consensus was reached not to revoke Uoti's account.  You
> > > were a pivotal part of that decision and you announced it on the mailing
> > > list[1].  You may regret your role now, but you cannot renounce it.
> > > When you point a finger at me (because that's what you do when you
> > > speak of root@) and accuse me of evil deeds, that finger is pointing
> > > right back at you.
> > 
> > Well you convinced me to write this when you called me.
> 
> Well, too late then.  You're fully responsible for your actions, I never
> pointed a gun at you.  You've got a 50% share of the blame/praise,
> assume it.  Don't pretend you had nothing to do with it.  If the vote
> was "bent" as you claim, you bent it as much as I did.  You may have
> formed regrets later on, but that does not excuse you from your
> responsibility.

I do accept that 50% responsibility. But keep in mind this reponsibility
is that of a begger who had no power to close or not to close the account!
If I had the power, I would have closed it before the vote and
reopened it at the condition that uoti posted a patch cleaning up his
commit.
I do not know if uoti would have. I do not know if uoti would have left the
project or kept posting patches. And I do not know if we would haven
attempted a fork. What I am pretty sure about is that there would have been
fewer flames and his fork would have failed due to lack of support from other
developers.

[...]

And i agree that its time to close this discussion, i just wanted to clarify
the "unanimous"

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being
governed by those who are dumber. -- Plato 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20080130/7b113e14/attachment.pgp>