[FFmpeg-devel] [ANNOUNCE] upcoming vote: extra members for GA

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 07:12:24PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-11-09 18:39:23)
> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 06:06:16PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-11-09 17:21:12)
> > > > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 01:21:13PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > > > As far as I can tell, the voter list in the last vote should be the same
> > > > > as the GA from 2020, except for the extra members whose voting rights
> > > > > expire after 2 years.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Do you dispute that? 
> > > > 
> > > > There are at least 3 issues here
> > > > 
> > > > * The first and maybe the biggest, is that our vote superviser can reply to
> > > >   mails within 20min (like in this thread here) but is not replying to a simple
> > > >   question within days where the list of voters comes from he used and how it
> > > >   relates to the 2020 GA. It gives one the feeling he has some sort of
> > > >   difficulty with awnsering that question
> > > >   you took a guess here and replied, and i appreciate that. But really JB
> > > >   choose this list and also the one in 2020. Only he can explain where these
> > > >   lists come from and how they relate.
> > > 
> > > JB did explain where the list comes from [1] - it was generated by the
> > > script that is now in our tree. Nobody disputed it in 2020.
> > > 
> > > > * I know for a fact that at least zane was not in the 2020 GA as i talked
> > > >   with him and i know he did cast a vote in 2023 because again he told me.
> > > >   So even if you partially apply the rules these lists do not match
> > > 
> > > Zane had 30 commits in July 2020, so he SHOULD have been on the list. If
> > > he wasn't, then it was a mistake in 2020.
> > 
> > the 2020 GA list cannot have been created in July 2020 because there where
> > votes prior that used it.
> 
> According to my mailbox, the vote on extra members was started on
> 2020-06-18. TC/CC election vote was started on 2020-07-12. Zane had 29
> commits as of the former, and 30 as of the latter. In either case he
> should have been on the list.
> 
> With what you told us so far, it is entirely possible he was on the
> original list, but
> * misremembered about not receiving the vote link, or
> * did not get the email because of delivery issues (we had them even now
>   during the first attempt to initiate the vote).

And thats why iam asking questions

If jb says zane was on the original list, then
    * did the mail bounce / fail to deliver ?
    * did jb see that ?
    * there where 3 votes i would think it would be corrected after the first bounce
If jb says zane was not on the original list then thats what the current evidence suggests IMHO


> 
> > > 
> > > > * The 2nd issue is that there are rules how to change the GA over time
> > > >   like that after 2 years there needs to a confirmation AND that the
> > > >   other members represent the "active" developers in the last 36 months.
> > > >   I can see an argument to leave the 2020 GA untouched and use it as is
> > > >   I can also see an argument to update it, and exactly this was done in a
> > > >   vote in 2021 by JB. Now we are here trying the 3rd variant of applying
> > > >   only half the rules.
> > > >   But whats more so, we actually are not. What you are doing here is
> > > >   looking at what happened and trying to rationalize it, trying to find
> > > >   an explanation for the list. Not stating upfront what this list is
> > > >   IMO this is not acceptable for a vote. Uhm we found this list, lets see
> > > >   where that might have come from ....
> > > 
> > > To be honest, it very much seems to me that you are trying to bikeshed
> > > the process to death. Yes, it is imperfect, but that is to be expected
> > > given we've only used it a few times so far, and the last time was over
> > > 2 years ago. What we are doing here is trying to clarify the rules so
> > > that we actually can vote with some regularity.
> > 
> > Is it bikesheding if 2 lists that are supposed to be the same differ in
> > multiple entries ?
> 
> It is the way you are doing it, with all these "just asking questions"
> and vague accusations of impropriety.

I have incomplete information so i need to ask questions.


> 
> > these are lists with roughly 50 entries, now we _know_ 2 people differ
> 
> We don't. You only mention one, whom I adress above. Who is the second?

Alexander Strasser


> 
> > but there where 3 on the extra voters list so really 4 differ almost certainly
> 
> I do not understand this math.

There where 3 extra developer voted onto the GA and there is zane.
that makes 4
there is also Gautam Ramakrishnan on the posted list who simply did not
have 20 commits at the time of the votes in 2020
thats 5.

You cannot explain this away.
Also Thilo mentioned that the number of voters was 49 without the 3 extra members
in the results while the list jb posted had 51

These things really dont match no matter how you turn it

And again thats why iam asking questions.


[...]

> We don't need to "understand what happened",

We do need to understand what happened. The whole project depends on the decissions
of teh GA. This is not a joke, this is not something where we can be not sure
who was on the voter list

thx

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know
nothing. -- Socrates
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20231109/fc6c7191/attachment.sig>