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

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 11:58:29PM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, at 23:49, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 08:30:15PM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Kempf wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Thu, 9 Nov 2023, at 19:15, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Nov 09, 2023 at 07:53:33PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> >> Le torstaina 9. marraskuuta 2023, 19.41.53 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> >> > [...]
> >> >> If you think some people should be added, as far as I am concerned, you are of 
> >> >> course welcome to nudge them via private message to friendly remind them that 
> >> >> they can nominate themselves.
> >> >
> >> > so what i will do then is
> >> > If a developer was in the GA before || are just under the threshold but
> >> > active || are part of the infra teams and packaging
> >> > i will leave them in the list to be added (that is also what jb suggested)
> >> 
> >> Of course, this seems reasonable.
> >> 
> >> > I will contact them and ask if they want to be in the GA and
> >> 
> >> You should contact who you want, or think is necessary.
> >> But they should step forward and say so publicly that they are candidates.
> >
> > last time you collected candidates you said something very different
> >
> > https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2020-June/265348.html
> >
> > "If you are interested in being a candidate, please mail me in private 
> > (aka not on the list).
> >  You can suggest another candidate, but I will validate with them if 
> > they might agree in the end."
> >
> > I want to use the exact same process, why you and other people demand
> > a higher bar ?
> 
> First, because noone said anything else on that thread to ask for it to be public.

> And then, because people complained after that it was not public, at the following meeting.
> So we said that we would do differently the following time.

Was this a FFmpeg meeting or a (weekly) FFlabs meeting ?

ive been in only one FFLabs meeting and that must have been years after this.
So obviously thats a differnt case ...
And in that one meeting FFmpeg voting was discussed towards the end of the
meeting.

id like to point out that FFlabs is a commercial entity and not the right
place to discuss anything about FFmpeg governance or votes.

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User
questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML.
And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
-------------- 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/20231110/e389b9ee/attachment.sig>