Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of FFmeeting/2019-12

Apr 23, 2021, 4:22:45 AM (7 weeks ago)
Timothy Gu



  • FFmeeting/2019-12

    v1 v1  
     1Notes originally from: []
     4- jb opens, agenda for this meeting
     5o what happened at last meeting (at VDD)
     6o various next steps, technical committee, community committee
     7o any votes that we might want to have for next time
     8o time/date for next meeting
     10- jb, summary of vdd:
     11o who can vote
     12o temp committees to bootstrap function
     13o final committees will be during fosdem
     14o long email about decision was mailed to ffmpeg-list
     15o most feedback was positive, except from durandal
     17- jb asks cehoyos for feedback on whether 20 commits is still ok
     18  to be considered participatory in voting
     19o cehoyos says (on IRC) that he thinks 3 years is long, but other
     20  people (michael, ronald, jdarnley) appear fine with 3 years.
     21o cehoyos also says non-coding contributors should be recognized
     22  (packages, server admins, mailing list admins), e.g. moritz or
     23  alexander strasser, and multiple people appear to agree, no
     24  disagreement is raised
     25o j-b proposes to add them to the voting list for now, under the
     26  rule of "limited number of other non-coding contributors"
     27o jamrial also thinks nevcariel should be added, thilo agrees
     28o we decide to exclude kurosu and kierank for now, since they are
     29  not very active ATM
     30o the same (for now) will go for libav contributions (anton, martin,
     31  janne)
     32o should packagers get a vote? cehoyos thinks they should in some
     33  cases, e.g. gentoo, osx, windows, debian
     34o several people raise various objections. ronald thinks they are
     35  not part of a core group. lynne proposes we only include people
     36  that contribute back. cehoyos says he specifically intends to
     37  bring in the pkg maintainers of debian, osx, windows (zeranoe) and
     38  gentoo since they do valuable work in "spreading our work" and
     39  contribute back. however, cehoyos suggests they should get one vote
     40  per package. j-b proposes we vote on each packager individually. the
     41  general consensus appears to be we want this, but limited
     42o should people on technical committee also get voting right regardless
     43  of whether they meet the 20 vote threshold or not?
     44o we understand that this is excluding people like kurosu and kierank,
     45  but as soon as they are active again, they will get in :)
     47- jb brings up whether rodger's proposed voting mechanism is generally
     48  agreed upon (or even if anyone cares)
     49o michael says on IRC: i suggested "Schulze STV" (to rodger)
     50o nobody else seems to care much, primarily what matters is who gets
     51  to vote, not how we vote (jamrial)
     52o [11:38am] <cehoyos> BBB: I wonder if the reason nobody comments is
     53  that nobody is aware that this does have "consequences"...
     54  [11:38am] <cehoyos> (I suspect it has consequences but still don't
     55  know what is "good" and what "not")
     56o iilya (on IRC) says "all the condorcet methods should produce almost
     57  the same results anyway"
     59- jb: next topic, technical conflict resolution committee
     60o TC right now is: michael, james almer, ronald, martin, anton
     61o jb will write down process as a markdown document
     62o ronald says "we'll see how it works the first time, right?"
     63o on IRC, anton, james almer, thilo agree to just see how it works out
     65- jb: next topic, community committee
     66o jb: "code of conduct?"
     67o "what does videolan do?"
     68o videolan has very specific rules about what you can not do in terms
     69  of behaviour on IRC etc., and how long you get kicked (escalation
     70  process) if you violate the rules
     71o cehoyos on irc: using the one from videolan as basis could be done
     72  but is difficult to agree with or not since it is very non-specific
     73o cehoyos and ronald: the CC should probably be tasked with updating
     74  the CoC to be more specific than the one we currently have.
     75o michael on irc: the problem with the coC was primarily that we didn't
     76  enforce it. steven liu agrees
     77o kierank and jamrial on irc think the current coc is not fit (kierank:
     78  "not fit for purpose", jamrial: "has no defined rules")
     79o lydia proposes one round of feedback so people can say what works for
     80  them and what does not
     81o most people agree with CC proposing changes to CoC, then all people
     82  voting on the result from that. jb/lydia will help with that.
     84- cehoyos asks about reimbursement limits for conferences from the ffmpeg
     85  funds.
     86o there appears no disagreement that the amounts he's quoting (EUR 320
     87  for hotel, EUR hotel for flight) is fine
     88o jb thinks this should not be done on list to protect people's private
     89  information re: reimbursements because it includes details like where
     90  you went or where from
     91o michael and cehoyos think the general requesting of reimbursements
     92  should be public so people can comment/object, but there is agreement
     93  some more personal information should be allowed to be kept private
     94o jb: videolan has travel policy with how much is ok for going where etc.
     96- Lynne asks about non-conference expenses, since we have funds but no
     97  clear process to "spend" ffmpeg's money
     98o jb asks if she can be more specific about what she's thinking of
     99o cehoyos agrees with lynna
     101- next meet?
     102o one month? or every second month? jb prefers monthly, jamrial/michaelni
     103  prefer bi-monthly
     104o stevenliu/anton/james darnley/thilo/koda/nightrose/iilya/jb want early
     105  january, jamrial/michaelni/ronald want at fosdem, so jan 6 (or around)
     106  is decided for next meet
     108- cehoyos also proposes we tell ffmpeg devs they "should" (not "can")
     109  come to fosdem and that the funds will pay for reasonable travel expenses
     111- jb closes meeting