Re: Reintroducing FFmpeg to Debian
On 17/08/14 10:28, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 01:19:38AM +0200, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>> The list is quite long and debunking each of the statements could take a
>> lot of time.
>> I'm going to address two historical "misrepresentations":
>> # The change of management
>> Michael Niedermayer managed to get demoted from his leader position by
>> the topmost 18 people involved in FFmpeg by the time due his tendency
>> of not following the rules. that after weeks from being voted to stay as
>> leader by 15, 5 explicitly stating their vote was conditioned by his
>> behaviour and 1 definitely against him.
> There was a vote on the ffmpeg-devel list, everyone can recount the
> votes although its probably a bit work to do given its a large thread
> with lots of other discussions (the links below point to that thread)
> I dont remember the exact numbers but there was a majority in
> support of me in all possible variants in which one could count the
I did and wrote that above, anybody is welcome to check if I miscounted
so I provided a link in the previous email, repeated here for
> Ive asked  back then what "policy in place" was broken
- you tried to commit code that was blatantly below the already lax
quality requirements (e.g. it contained tabs, it was (and still is) hard
to read, it contains dubious, aka security-concerning, practices), I
told you not to commit those as-is and you blatantly ignored me and the
others against it. I'm referring to the mplayer filters.
- your interaction with whoever wasn't in full agreement with you was
horrible, I told you for months in public and private, you seemed to
agree just to behave in even worse way later. The interactions with Mans
are probably the best example of this.
- your interaction with whoever provided infrastructure service was
horrible. As Attila already stated here and here
> In retrospect, bigger changes should have been made to the policy
> if that had avoided the takeover attempt and fork, but the takeover
> attempt came a bit out of the blue, at least for me and it definitely
> left the feeling that there was more interrest in seizing the
> opertunity for a takeover instead of discussing and amending the
I discussed with you in private for months before that and the outcome
had been none.
> Then i think we should reunite the projects with some common
> development policy most are happy with.
Given this email and the PS below doesn't seem that you want to
collaborate in any productive way.
> PS: please spare the world of these defamation attempts
People is free to check, count and sift the mailing list and git history
and form an informed opinion.
I'm sick of being depicted as traitorous swine or monkey or
whichever colorful expression do you use nowadays and even more annoyed
of having people thinking that must be true since we aren't answering
back to your outlandish claims.
> and i also think we should look forward and solve the issues we have
> now and not fight over what happenend 3-4 years ago or who made more
> mistakes ...
The current issue can be summarized with:
- you leveraging the trademark of FFmpeg to get more mindshare for
- you leeching my work by leveraging git merge daily and presenting
yourself as more secure by "fixing" fuzz-reports and spamming CVEs.
- you putting in FFmpeg pretty much every patch from every branch you
can come by, including my incomplete work from github (you did for pulse
and segment with interesting results, hopefully you won't do that again
- you "contacting" whoever brings patches in Libav. (Keiji was not happy
to remember you and we got other people quietly asking what to do of it).
 The vote
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/118594 c.f. Change
of management http://lwn.net/Articles/423703/
[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] email@example.com
[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] email@example.com