Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of FFmeeting/2015-09

Nov 1, 2015, 8:53:51 PM (6 years ago)
Timothy Gu



  • FFmeeting/2015-09

    v1 v1  
     1This FFmeeting was hosted on irc:// on 2015-09-12, at 15 UTC.
     3== Pre-scheduled topic ==
     51. ABI compatibility policy
     62. general policy decision process
     73. VDD15
     84. Outreachy funding for the next round (winter 2015)
     95. use of Github/Gitorious for pull requests
     106. Any other business
     12== Full meeting log ==
     15Sep 12 17:00:59 <saste> allright time to go
     16Sep 12 17:01:18 <saste> i summoned this meeting to discuss some relevant topics
     17Sep 12 17:01:27 *       Shiz (~shiz at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     18Sep 12 17:01:49 <saste> this is also meant as a sort of preparatory meeting for the real-life meeting which will be held in paris the next weekend
     19Sep 12 17:02:07 <saste> you can see in the topics the pastebin containing the topics of the day to discuss
     20Sep 12 17:02:22 <saste>
     21Sep 12 17:02:29 <saste> first topic is
     22Sep 12 17:02:41 <saste> ABI compatibility policy
     23Sep 12 17:03:25 <saste> please note that i just compiled the list of topics but i'm not very involved with ffmpeg development, so don't expect me to chat a lot about the merit of each topic
     24Sep 12 17:03:32 <BBB>   so are we going to just do a vote on that? or do you want to re-discuss it also?
     25Sep 12 17:03:50 <atomnuker>     wasn't wm4 the person who proposed it in the first place? where is he?
     26Sep 12 17:03:54 <saste> I don't know, maybe someone can spend a few words describing the proposed options
     27Sep 12 17:04:02 <BBB>   (there was a long … “discussion” :) … on the mailinglist already on the abi compat subject, and it’s fair to say that we disagreed)
     28Sep 12 17:04:13 <nevcairiel>    well the options are pretty simple, do or don't
     29Sep 12 17:04:23 <saste> then we can delay the voting to any other means, not necessarily we have to decide/vote right now
     30Sep 12 17:04:39 <Cigaes>        nevcairiel: indeed, that is the root alternative; there are a few subquestions after this is decided.
     31Sep 12 17:04:50 <ubitux>        atomnuker: wm4 kind of ragequited irc because it wasn't going fast enough apparently; try to /invite him
     32Sep 12 17:05:06 <nevcairiel>    do we spent effort to maintain the ABI compat, which in itself is not and cannot really be fully tested due to mis-matching behavior, or well, do we simply not
     33Sep 12 17:05:13 <atomnuker>     I'll ping him on ffmpeg-devel, that should get his attention
     34Sep 12 17:05:50 <ubitux>        we probably need to agree about how we "advertise" the policy
     35Sep 12 17:06:02 <ubitux>        be it a news, or a dedicated pages to "current goals"
     36Sep 12 17:06:18 <ubitux>        just to ease taking decisions and keeping up with them
     37Sep 12 17:06:23 <BBB>   so the discussion was more about how it was advertised or “how the patch was concealing its purpose”, right?
     38Sep 12 17:07:12 *       Easyfab (~chatzilla at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     39Sep 12 17:07:21 *       Easyfab (~chatzilla at has left #ffmpeg-meeting
     40Sep 12 17:07:23 <Cigaes>        BBB: from my PoV, right; I have mixed opinions on the decision itself.
     41Sep 12 17:07:31 <BBB>   who was actually advocating _for_ keeping the abi compat options (as opposed to the discussion around it being concealed)?
     42Sep 12 17:07:47 <nevcairiel>    I don't think anyone was directly for keeping it
     43Sep 12 17:07:48 *       Easyfab (~chatzilla at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     44Sep 12 17:08:18 <nevcairiel>    The discussion mostly went in circles around the policy issue
     45Sep 12 17:08:24 *       llogan2 (lou at 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe70:2ed2) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     46Sep 12 17:08:50 <BBB>   right, I’m re-reading it now
     47Sep 12 17:09:14 <BBB>   carl eugen and nicolas george didn’t like us removing it without an explicit, dedicated discussion that allows us to decide whether we want to change policy on abi compat or not
     48Sep 12 17:09:17 <BBB>   so …
     49Sep 12 17:09:36 <BBB>   cehoyos isn’t here, is he?
     50Sep 12 17:09:45 <nevcairiel>    dont think so
     51Sep 12 17:09:49 <nevcairiel>    unless he uses a new name
     52Sep 12 17:10:08 *       jamrial (~jamrial at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     53Sep 12 17:10:13 <BBB>   does nicolas do irc?
     54Sep 12 17:10:25 <nevcairiel>    thats Cigaes i thought
     55Sep 12 17:10:51 <BBB>   ah :) ok sorry didn’t know
     56Sep 12 17:11:01 <BBB>   all makes sense now
     57Sep 12 17:11:13 <saste> so we're basically about topic #2, the policy decision process
     58Sep 12 17:11:23 <ubitux>        it's kind of related
     59Sep 12 17:11:28 <BBB>   one sort of morphed into the other… we can do #2 before we do #1
     60Sep 12 17:11:32 <BBB>   that might make more sense
     61Sep 12 17:11:37 <saste> do you have technical arguments to discuss about the ABI policy to adopt
     62Sep 12 17:11:52 <saste> or things which were not discussed on the ML
     63Sep 12 17:11:56 <nevcairiel>    unless someone wants to speak for keeping it?
     64Sep 12 17:12:46 <iive>  just a note. I think the best place to notify about ABI policy is somewhere in the changelog entries of 3.0 release.
     65Sep 12 17:13:02 <ubitux>        yeah, could be just that
     66Sep 12 17:13:06 <nevcairiel>    I don
     67Sep 12 17:13:18 <nevcairiel>    I don't think a  news entry or something is needed, changelog is mandatory of course
     68Sep 12 17:13:28 <nevcairiel>    the feature seems hardly used
     69Sep 12 17:13:34 <nevcairiel>    (if at all)
     70Sep 12 17:13:42 <ubitux>        we had a section for important behaviour changes in 2.6
     71Sep 12 17:13:45 <ubitux>        iirc
     72Sep 12 17:13:50 <BBB>   APIChanges also exists
     73Sep 12 17:13:54 <jamrial>       what would happen with the sonames if we drop the ABI compatibility policy?
     74Sep 12 17:14:10 <saste> nevcairiel, I don't think anybody is using it, but if they do they are probably very advanced FFmpeg users, and they probably are used to read the logs
     75Sep 12 17:14:18 <saste> so a news entry could be useless in that case
     76Sep 12 17:14:29 *       yayoi (~sndh at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     77Sep 12 17:15:04 <BBB>   jamrial: how did we fix that in the past?
     78Sep 12 17:15:08 <nevcairiel>    jamrial: we could bump them by 100 like nicolas suggested for all I care, just to make sure its clearly disjunct from libav
     79Sep 12 17:15:10 <BBB>   jamrial: is that why we have a 100 delta?
     80Sep 12 17:15:40 <Cigaes>        Distributing two incompatible libraries with the same SONAME is irresponsible.
     81Sep 12 17:15:45 <jamrial>       that's a configure option that i'm not sure anybody ever used, but yeah, can work as a solution
     82Sep 12 17:15:55 <Cigaes>        Bumping the major version once and for all is a simple solution.
     83Sep 12 17:16:12 <BBB>   so can we just bump to a different major than libav?
     84Sep 12 17:16:14 <Cigaes>        If we decide to drop ABI compatibility with libav, I would like to bring once again the suggestion of merging the libraries.
     85Sep 12 17:16:21 <BBB>   like, they use libavcodec.57, we use libavcodec.58?
     86Sep 12 17:16:30 <BBB>   (or the inverse, I don’t really care)
     87Sep 12 17:16:32 *       J_Darnley has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
     88Sep 12 17:16:33 <nevcairiel>    strictly speaking we already distribute incompatible libraries with the same soname
     89Sep 12 17:16:33 <Cigaes>        BBB: no, because they will eventually use 58.
     90Sep 12 17:16:47 <nevcairiel>    because noone uses the flag to enable the compat mode
     91Sep 12 17:17:03 <Cigaes>        nevcairiel: yes, but the ABI is mostly compatible even without it.
     92Sep 12 17:17:05 *       J_Darnley (~J_Darnley at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     93Sep 12 17:17:12 <nevcairiel>    "mostly" is irrelevant :)
     94Sep 12 17:17:21 <BBB>   we could just say “it’s not our problem” since ffmpeg isn’t the fork that caused there to be two identical sonames
     95Sep 12 17:17:24 <atomnuker>     Cigaes: IIRC there were plans to talk about that at VDD
     96Sep 12 17:17:30 <michaelni>     will we bump to 200 if theres another fork that doest bump ?
     97Sep 12 17:17:40 <jamrial>       nevcairiel: true, and in general people that use one project don't use the other
     98Sep 12 17:17:48 <ubitux>        note: we still need to keep the .100 micro as a mean to differentiate libraries, otherwise checks are going to be a pain for people trying to support post & past 3.0 + libav
     99Sep 12 17:17:53 <BBB>   I think sonames conflict is something to be discussed with libav
     100Sep 12 17:18:05 <BBB>   so the most efficient way to deal with it may be at vdd, not here
     101Sep 12 17:18:13 <iive>  we can also rename the libraries
     102Sep 12 17:18:13 <BBB>   since “they” are not here to agree on a solution with us
     103Sep 12 17:18:19 <nevcairiel>    its not our responsibility to keep compatible with every single fork out there, if we decide now to bump to get the soname conflict out of the way, then it should be a one-time thing
     104Sep 12 17:18:45 <iive>  we can use the debian naming scheme by default.
     105Sep 12 17:19:05 <Cigaes>        nevcairiel: agreed.
     106Sep 12 17:20:33 <BBB>   saste: I propose we move to #2 and then revisit #1 afterwards if needed
     107Sep 12 17:20:41 <nevcairiel>    (a proper fork should rename their SONAME entirely, anyway)
     108Sep 12 17:20:47 <Cigaes>        BBB: seconded.
     109Sep 12 17:20:56 <jamrial>       i personally would prefer if we don't bump. as i said most distros care only about one of the two projects at a time, and those that use both afaik don't ship binaries
     110Sep 12 17:20:58 <atomnuker>     nevcairiel: I agree as well
     111Sep 12 17:21:03 <saste> BBB: I agree
     112Sep 12 17:21:16 <Cigaes>        jamrial: distros are not the only distribution channel.
     113Sep 12 17:21:20 <saste> if there are no objections we are moving to point #2
     114Sep 12 17:21:32 <nevcairiel>    jamrial: or they ship renamed binaries, ie using the --build-suffix option
     115Sep 12 17:22:56 <BBB>   ok, so decision making process it is then… I guess michaelni should be given some time to give opinion as “old boss” here?
     116Sep 12 17:23:07 <BBB>   you’re very quiet michaelni
     117Sep 12 17:23:15 <jamrial>       Cigaes: true, but where else does it really matter? afaik all these abi considerations were put in place specifically because of distros
     118Sep 12 17:23:26 <michaelni>     BBB, ive nothing to say :)
     119Sep 12 17:23:48 <Cigaes>        jamrial: not only. If someone does "./configure --enable-shared && make install", it should not break their system either.*
     120Sep 12 17:24:10 <saste> it looks to me the most controversial point is having/not having vetoes
     121Sep 12 17:24:47 <BBB>   well there’s also the more general “when consensus cannot be reached, now what?”
     122Sep 12 17:24:55 <saste> with one formal or de-facto leader it was relatively easy to set controversies allowing the leader to decide
     123Sep 12 17:24:56 <BBB>   vetoes are just one part of that question
     124Sep 12 17:25:36 <llogan2>       how do other big projects deal with the situation?
     125Sep 12 17:25:52 <saste> anybody is for or against a committe or something?
     126Sep 12 17:25:58 <saste> no more than three people
     127Sep 12 17:26:00 <BBB>   some have a bofh
     128Sep 12 17:26:16 <BBB>   others have a committee (although that didn’t go well for xfree86)
     129Sep 12 17:26:18 <Cigaes>        saste: indeed. That is the reason I believe a leader is needed (or a leading committee). But it does not need to be the person who does all the heavy work.
     130Sep 12 17:26:19 <nevcairiel>    llogan2:  They usually tend to have a subsystem maintainer or an overall leader to decide, from what I hear
     131Sep 12 17:26:20 <saste> that's a form of leadership of course, regarding the overall project design
     132Sep 12 17:26:52 <BBB>   committee is good, but membership needs to be rotational, in the sense that you’re not a member for life, and it’s not up to you to relinquish your membership
     133Sep 12 17:26:56 <BBB>   (that leads to xfree86 situations)
     134Sep 12 17:27:00 <jamrial>       we could also have different people for different parts of the project. maintainers if you will
     135Sep 12 17:27:16 <BBB>   jamrial: well, we already have that, this is more about global decisions
     136Sep 12 17:27:20 <saste> jamrial, the problem is about deciding overall design, like the ABI things
     137Sep 12 17:27:21 <BBB>   or are you advocating global maintainers?
     138Sep 12 17:27:23 *       reynaldo (~rverdejo at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     139Sep 12 17:27:28 <BBB>   (like a bofh :) )
     140Sep 12 17:27:36 <saste> local maintainer always worked pretty well with FFmpeg, I think
     141Sep 12 17:27:46 <nevcairiel>    We also have parts of the code base that is very generic code, and not maintained by a single person
     142Sep 12 17:27:58 <reynaldo>      Sat 8:30AM here, thanks and hello o/ :)
     143Sep 12 17:28:02 <Cigaes>        BBB: the leader need to be accepted by the other developers, that is the crux of the issue (and what failed in 2011).
     144Sep 12 17:28:11 <BBB>   right
     145Sep 12 17:28:15 <atomnuker>     the MAINTAINERS file sometimes list people from libav as well
     146Sep 12 17:28:48 <saste> atomnuker, cleaning MAINTAINERS is from hard to impossible, with no explicit reply from old maintainers
     147Sep 12 17:28:48 *       lglinskih has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
     148Sep 12 17:28:54 <llogan2>       reynaldo: im to your timezone on the left
     149Sep 12 17:29:21 <ubitux>        what were the last things the project had problems to make up its mind?
     150Sep 12 17:29:31 <nevcairiel>    ubitux: pkg-config :D
     151Sep 12 17:29:34 <ubitux>        i remember pkg-config... and this recent abi thing, but what else?
     152Sep 12 17:29:38 <saste> or better, the only way would be to ask active maintainers to confirm their will to maintain those parts of the code
     153Sep 12 17:29:45 <ubitux>        nevcairiel: yeah right, but is there anything else in these last 4 years?
     154Sep 12 17:29:55 <jamrial>       BBB: maybe something like said committe, but one for different part of the code
     155Sep 12 17:30:05 <llogan2>       saste: a grat purge of MAINTAINERS?
     156Sep 12 17:30:05 <Cigaes>        ubitux: subtitles character encoding API.
     157Sep 12 17:30:17 <reynaldo>      llogan2: !
     158Sep 12 17:30:19 <ubitux>        actually, same question about similar problems libav had without leader to take a decision
     159Sep 12 17:30:37 <BBB>   libav tried to find common agreement
     160Sep 12 17:30:38 <nevcairiel>    libav didnt really have those discussions
     161Sep 12 17:30:51 <iive>  they probably had the on the phone
     162Sep 12 17:30:52 <BBB>   and if that didn’t happen, the developer typiclly fell off the boat
     163Sep 12 17:30:56 <nevcairiel>    when someone objects, its usually on a technical level
     164Sep 12 17:31:06 <nevcairiel>    or yeah, the developer went away
     165Sep 12 17:31:11 <nevcairiel>    like mru
     166Sep 12 17:31:20 <BBB>   or me :)
     167Sep 12 17:31:34 <Cigaes>        nevcairiel: you know for a fact that mru went away because of disagreements?
     168Sep 12 17:31:50 <ubitux>        loosing a developer everytime there is a disagreement is kind of an expensive cost
     169Sep 12 17:32:04 <nevcairiel>    i couldnt attest 100% to it, but i think diego's refactoring of some build system things pissed him off eventually because he disagreed
     170Sep 12 17:32:58 <saste> in case we want a committe, we need some metrics to decide if a developer can have voting rights
     171Sep 12 17:33:07 <Cigaes>        Since mru was one of the most prominent devlopers on the side of the fork at the time, I take it as a sign that leaderless does not work.
     172Sep 12 17:33:11 <llogan2>       BBB: ...rotational makes sense to me.
     173Sep 12 17:33:19 <Cigaes>        saste: that is the big problem indeed.
     174Sep 12 17:33:55 <BBB>   I think it’s a sign that leaderless without a disagreement resolution mechanism does not work
     175Sep 12 17:34:03 <nevcairiel>    Cigaes: these days their active core is so small that everyone just does their own thing and the others dont really mind
     176Sep 12 17:34:16 <Cigaes>        llogan2/BBB: as long as the leader/committee is willing and the other developers are satisfied with him, there is no need to force a rotation.
     177Sep 12 17:34:28 <BBB>   that’s true
     178Sep 12 17:34:32 *       J_Darnley has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
     179Sep 12 17:34:39 <BBB>   a rotation can mean you stay if others are ok with it
     180Sep 12 17:34:42 <llogan2>       but what if others want to participate?
     181Sep 12 17:34:56 *       J_Darnley (~J_Darnley at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     182Sep 12 17:35:12 <nevcairiel>    then the other developers are clearly not satisfied anymore, and the condition doesnt apply .)
     183Sep 12 17:35:39 <Cigaes>        llogan2: then said others are not satisfied, and indeed, they should have a chance.
     184Sep 12 17:36:06 <reynaldo>      so we decide on a leader + voters(developers) setup already. Missed a few minutes, sorry. just trying to understand where we are at
     185Sep 12 17:36:17 <reynaldo>      the first one was a question ^ ?
     186Sep 12 17:36:44 <BBB>   reynaldo: no, nothing was decided yet
     187Sep 12 17:36:51 <reynaldo>      BBB ok, thanks
     188Sep 12 17:37:14 <atomnuker>     I think there should be someone like a leader who only steps in when two developers are at an absolute impasse, and have argued for at least a few days
     189Sep 12 17:37:30 <nevcairiel>    you mean a judge
     190Sep 12 17:37:42 <atomnuker>     yes, or a voting process like reynaldo said
     191Sep 12 17:38:05 <reynaldo>      I'd have both
     192Sep 12 17:38:07 <nevcairiel>    or mediator or arbitrator if those are better words
     193Sep 12 17:38:20 <Cigaes>        atomnuker: who steps in when developers call upon him/her.
     194Sep 12 17:38:25 <llogan2>       media-tor
     195Sep 12 17:38:28 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: the voters
     196Sep 12 17:38:37 <atomnuker>     but the key point is not to intervene too early or too late
     197Sep 12 17:39:14 <reynaldo>      and just in case my position is not clear enough, I think our community *needs* this kind of strict setup, we are wild as that
     198Sep 12 17:39:19 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: that was not what I meant. I mean: A proposes a patch, B disagrees stubbornly, A calls upon Leader.
     199Sep 12 17:39:32 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: Im thinking beyond patch disagreements
     200Sep 12 17:39:41 <saste> I think a committe of ideally three developers would be fine, so that who settle the controversy doesn't attract all the hate
     201Sep 12 17:39:48 <reynaldo>      Im thinking on the same structure handling every disagreement
     202Sep 12 17:39:52 <saste> that what happens when you have a single one developer
     203Sep 12 17:39:59 <Cigaes>        Of course, for important questions, the decision must be from all developers, not just leader/committee.
     204Sep 12 17:40:03 <saste> but then the more you have to decide, the slower the process is
     205Sep 12 17:40:07 <BBB>   I am happy with saste’s 3-developer committee thing
     206Sep 12 17:40:07 <Cigaes>        If only: nominating the leader/committee.
     207Sep 12 17:40:49 <BBB>   also, they don’t have to be the activest of developers; rather, they need to be respected across sections of the community
     208Sep 12 17:40:50 <reynaldo>      saste, BBB that's 3 devs & no single leader ?
     209Sep 12 17:40:52 <Cigaes>        We can vote on the number of members in the leading committee the first time we vote.
     210Sep 12 17:40:57 <llogan2>       saste: sounds good to me
     211Sep 12 17:41:15 <BBB>   reynaldo: yeah. although leader seemed to work fine also
     212Sep 12 17:41:52 <llogan2>       Benevolent Triumvorate for Life
     213Sep 12 17:42:19 <saste> BBB: and they need to be able to judge about the technical merits of the decisions to take
     214Sep 12 17:42:20 <iive>  yes, fixed structure tend to accumulate power with time.
     215Sep 12 17:42:34 <saste> then we would need a rotation mechanism
     216Sep 12 17:42:49 <BBB>   right, that’s why I mentioned rotation mechanism
     217Sep 12 17:42:58 <ubitux>        what if the leader & 1 person agree against 10 persons?
     218Sep 12 17:43:13 <nevcairiel>    then you didnt pick a good leader
     219Sep 12 17:43:14 <iive>  there is another solution. If there is dead-lock, we can pick the solution randomly
     220Sep 12 17:43:16 <ubitux>        10 persons being more or less active developers
     221Sep 12 17:43:23 <reynaldo>      saste, BBB so if desicion X is so complex that it warrants one member of our commitee to vote "whatever", then a decision might actually never be reached?
     222Sep 12 17:43:28 <Cigaes>        ubitux: then why did they chose that leader?
     223Sep 12 17:43:29 <atomnuker>     ubitux: down with the leader
     224Sep 12 17:43:40 <reynaldo>      this is why I think we should have 1 leader + small commitee ^
     225Sep 12 17:43:52 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: if leaders are unsure, they can ask for counsel.
     226Sep 12 17:43:53 <saste> i'm not even sure about the leader
     227Sep 12 17:43:54 <reynaldo>      so leader & commitee can oversee each other and step in if needed
     228Sep 12 17:44:00 <saste> probably a committe is better
     229Sep 12 17:44:09 <saste> so we avoid conflict between leader and committe
     230Sep 12 17:44:13 <llogan2>       i odn't think anyone wants to be "the leader"
     231Sep 12 17:44:45 <Cigaes>        saste: I insist: we can decide formally on leader/committee when we have a voting process. We can even change each time the committee is rotated.
     232Sep 12 17:44:49 <jamrial>       ubitux: have a voting first, if those 10 people are the majority, leader/committee doesn't intervene?
     233Sep 12 17:45:10 <ubitux>        ok ok
     234Sep 12 17:45:23 <iive>  Is there another solution that doesn't involve Politics?
     235Sep 12 17:45:35 <llogan2>       armwrestling
     236Sep 12 17:45:36 <reynaldo>      jamrial: not only that Im afraid, in my experience there are matters that might only be discussed among the commitee and/or leader
     237Sep 12 17:45:45 <reynaldo>      this is rather important guys ^^
     238Sep 12 17:45:53 <iive>  llogan2: I was thinking of lottery, but that's find too :)
     239Sep 12 17:45:55 <reynaldo>      and something that needs to be considered
     240Sep 12 17:46:09 <atomnuker>     iive: what we currently do: call a meeting once conflicts happen
     241Sep 12 17:46:30 <saste> atomnuker, the truth is that the meeting doesn't resolve things, most of the time
     242Sep 12 17:46:43 <saste> unless you give voting power to the attendees
     243Sep 12 17:46:52 <saste> in that case you need to define who are the attendees
     244Sep 12 17:47:00 <saste> this applies in case there are controversies
     245Sep 12 17:47:15 <saste> note that in most cases decisions are resolved with no conflict
     246Sep 12 17:47:16 <atomnuker>     saste: they should mostly resolve themselves given time
     247Sep 12 17:47:26 <saste> that's more than 99% of the issues
     248Sep 12 17:47:45 <saste> the decision process is about that 1% of issues which can't be settled with the "normal" means
     249Sep 12 17:47:58 <Cigaes>        saste: hear, hear. Let us focus on that please.
     250Sep 12 17:48:03 <BBB>   ++
     251Sep 12 17:48:58 <saste> can we settle reasonable criteria for selecting voters?
     252Sep 12 17:49:15 <reynaldo>      fwiw I think the voters right should be granted after X commits and lost after a _large_ period of inactivity
     253Sep 12 17:49:29 <reynaldo>      plain criteria, easy to follow
     254Sep 12 17:49:35 <llogan2>       why inactivity?
     255Sep 12 17:49:39 <saste> that's the whole issue, and one of the reasons of the fork, since we couldn't agree about the validity of a votation
     256Sep 12 17:50:11 <reynaldo>      llogan2: thats my take, lets hear others and then discuss on their details
     257Sep 12 17:50:17 <BBB>   llogan2: my term “mplungarians” is only partially derogatory
     258Sep 12 17:50:18 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: for the initial voting rights, that is of course a must. For later evolutions, co-optation by vote is possible too.
     259Sep 12 17:50:20 <nevcairiel>    llogan2: iif someone wasnt involved with the development for a sufficiently long time, he may not really know the current state of the project sufficiently
     260Sep 12 17:50:31 <reynaldo>      guys, can you propose your formulas and then we can discuss
     261Sep 12 17:50:34 <reynaldo>      lets focuss please
     262Sep 12 17:50:45 <reynaldo>      otherwise this will just drag on and on
     263Sep 12 17:50:58 <BBB>   I support reynaldo’s notation
     264Sep 12 17:51:36 <reynaldo>      thanks. do we have any other alternative? guys? anything else to suggest ?
     265Sep 12 17:51:45 <BBB>   as for large period, I’d say 1 or 2 years with no commits is sufficiently large, but I’m open to other ideas
     266Sep 12 17:51:50 <reynaldo>      if not, we can discuss on the details on my proposal and settle on something
     267Sep 12 17:52:02 <BBB>   but yeah we can discuss details on ML
     268Sep 12 17:52:05 <Cigaes>        BBB: discussing who loses voting rights can wait.
     269Sep 12 17:52:08 <BBB>   and then let’s move on to #3
     270Sep 12 17:52:16 <saste> allright
     271Sep 12 17:52:18 <llogan2>       criteria: someone who is active, someone who wants to be a voter, and for the first "triumvorate" someone who has been around for a "while"
     272Sep 12 17:52:19 <reynaldo>      no, Id rather do it here than to the mailing list
     273Sep 12 17:52:31 <reynaldo>      this is the single most important desicion we should make
     274Sep 12 17:52:37 <BBB>   ok
     275Sep 12 17:52:57 <saste> llogan2, sounds good
     276Sep 12 17:53:20 <nevcairiel>    llogan2: define active
     277Sep 12 17:53:32 <reynaldo>      so, inactivity: 2 years / number of commits to reach voting rights: 50 in one year
     278Sep 12 17:53:41 <reynaldo>      sounds like something you'd be able to agree on ^ ?
     279Sep 12 17:53:54 <BBB>   ok
     280Sep 12 17:54:05 <llogan2>       nevcairiel: at least some sort of activity within the last 6 months? shows that they have an interest in the project.
     281Sep 12 17:54:14 <Cigaes>        I think we can not decide on a criterion without having a few stats.
     282Sep 12 17:54:19 <reynaldo>      sorry, mean to say "50" not, "50" in one year
     283Sep 12 17:54:31 <ubitux>        anyone to share a git command to raise those names?
     284Sep 12 17:54:53 <ubitux>        (so we can evaluate how much people are involved and the concerned ppl know about that)
     285Sep 12 17:55:05 <reynaldo>      my bet its it will come out to ~20ppl or maybe less
     286Sep 12 17:55:08 <reynaldo>      a maneagable set
     287Sep 12 17:55:15 <llogan2>       my beef with inactive is that they are just not interested in the project, nor would they be informed about the detailes of the decision to be made
     288Sep 12 17:55:21 <nevcairiel>    ubitux: git shortlog -s -n
     289Sep 12 17:55:36 <reynaldo>      llogan2: not every single time, sometimes life just takes over but you remain lurkin around
     290Sep 12 17:55:41 <reynaldo>      just not actively contributing
     291Sep 12 17:56:10 <ubitux>        nevcairiel: now we need the 2-year parameters
     292Sep 12 17:56:18 <ubitux>        nevcairiel: do we invite libav ppl to vote too? :)
     293Sep 12 17:56:22 <reynaldo>      happens when ppl change jobs, have kids, get sick, you name it
     294Sep 12 17:56:22 <jamrial>       ubitux: git shortlog -ns --no-merges n2.5..n2.8 maybe
     295Sep 12 17:56:31 <reynaldo>      libav has nothing to do with this unless they are "dual"
     296Sep 12 17:56:48 <ubitux>        jamrial: release scoped then, not time scoped?
     297Sep 12 17:56:48 <llogan2>       reynaldo: but that means they are now too bust to deal with FFdecisions
     298Sep 12 17:56:48 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: in that case, maybe it is normal they do not vote.
     299Sep 12 17:56:48 <saste> reynaldo, commit criteria are also unjust towards people doing other kind of services (helping users or with the administration), but we need to converge towards some (somehow arbitrary) criteria
     300Sep 12 17:56:53 <llogan2>       *busy
     301Sep 12 17:57:01 <jamrial>       use commits instead of tags then
     302Sep 12 17:57:08 <nevcairiel>    ubitux: find a rev in time thats 2 years ago then, dont think it gets any easier
     303Sep 12 17:57:21 <Cigaes>        OTHO, someone reviewing patches on the ML without producing them should have vote right too.
     304Sep 12 17:57:30 <reynaldo>      saste: I understand that, and as I plan to give the voters every single right I think they should be the ones choosing how to deal with that and other issues
     305Sep 12 17:57:39 <ubitux>        (nevcairiel: pretty sure git has a time parser for that kind of stuff)
     306Sep 12 17:58:22 <reynaldo>      so, pending confirmation, we are at 50 commits and activity in the last 2 years, maybe we can settle in 1 year of inactivy llogan2 ?
     307Sep 12 17:58:29 <Cigaes>        I propose this: we decide on an objective criterion for the initial set, then the selected people coopt worthy people who were left over, if any.
     308Sep 12 17:58:44 <reynaldo>      we need to discuss "reentry" how can you get back to voting after a period of inactivty
     309Sep 12 17:58:56 <BBB>   reynaldo: same as initial entry?
     310Sep 12 17:59:00 <saste> anybody against the reynaldo commit criteria about what an active developer is?
     311Sep 12 17:59:05 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: yeah, they can decide that and pretty much anything for that matter
     312Sep 12 17:59:09 <BBB>   saste: sgtm
     313Sep 12 17:59:11 <reynaldo>      BBB: good
     314Sep 12 17:59:14 <saste> are we also going to count merged commits?
     315Sep 12 17:59:15 <reynaldo>      maybe half that ?
     316Sep 12 17:59:19 <reynaldo>      BBB ^
     317Sep 12 17:59:37 <Cigaes>        saste: if we consider reuniting with libav, then libav guys must have voting right.
     318Sep 12 17:59:44 <iive>  well, whoever wants to vote, could do 50 K&R formatting commits and be done :D
     319Sep 12 17:59:50 <saste> Cigaes, I'm fine with that
     320Sep 12 17:59:54 <reynaldo>      I dont want to miss the vote from someone with community experience out of waiting for him to get back at full speed
     321Sep 12 18:00:10 <durandal_1707> Lol
     322Sep 12 18:00:11 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: reuninting with libav is not something that has to be decided now
     323Sep 12 18:00:22 <reynaldo>      thats why we have voters
     324Sep 12 18:00:29 *       lglinskih (~lglinskih at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     325Sep 12 18:01:05 <llogan2>       i dont think anyone who has been inactive for x years is going to give a shit about spending time making votes
     326Sep 12 18:01:19 <saste> llogan2, indeed
     327Sep 12 18:01:25 <reynaldo>      lets settle on a 1y inactivity ?
     328Sep 12 18:01:30 <reynaldo>      saste: ^
     329Sep 12 18:01:33 <llogan2>       "hey, babtiste, you're a voter"
     330Sep 12 18:01:48 <reynaldo>      like, a kid, a sickness, etc
     331Sep 12 18:02:00 <ubitux>        nevcairiel: git shortlog -ns --since '{2 years ago}'
     332Sep 12 18:02:19 <jamrial>       nice
     333Sep 12 18:02:26 <llogan2>       reynaldo: perhaps i do not understand your critera.
     334Sep 12 18:02:27 <saste> so we have this criterion: a developer is considered active if in the last year he has at least 50 committs (merged committs are good as well)
     335Sep 12 18:02:53 <ubitux>        should we target a number of commits or just the most actives ?
     336Sep 12 18:03:13 <reynaldo>      llogan2: 50 commits in a 1 year window to become a voter, 1 year of inactivty to loose your right, 25 commits in one year to regain it
     337Sep 12 18:03:14 <jamrial>       saste: we have developers that don't have nearly as much as that but are active in the ml
     338Sep 12 18:03:26 <ubitux>        like, git shortlog -ns --since '{2 years ago}' | head -n20 maybe
     339Sep 12 18:03:40 <ubitux>        this looks like a good list to me ^
     340Sep 12 18:03:48 <saste> jamrial, I think we can agree that any criteria will be flawed in some way
     341Sep 12 18:03:53 <ubitux>        or maybe 25
     342Sep 12 18:04:00 <reynaldo>      jamrial: activity on the mailing list, incredible as it sounds, has been a problem some times :)
     343Sep 12 18:04:04 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: do you insist to have the same criterion for the initial list and later proceedings?
     344Sep 12 18:04:09 <reynaldo>      I think we can let the voters decide on such issues
     345Sep 12 18:04:09 <llogan2>       reynaldo: yes, i was wrong about what you wanted. i thought you required that the voter must be inactive for x years to be "impartial".
     346Sep 12 18:04:17 <saste> we just need an objective metrics, then the new voters can fine tune the system
     347Sep 12 18:04:21 <ubitux>        30 looks fine too, it reaches the 50 commits one
     348Sep 12 18:04:25 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: I'd let the rules to be stabilized by the voters
     349Sep 12 18:04:29 <reynaldo>      so lets make them initial
     350Sep 12 18:04:30 <jamrial>       saste: true, which is why we should think how to include said people
     351Sep 12 18:04:34 <reynaldo>      and see where it leads us
     352Sep 12 18:04:36 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: then let us only discuss the initial criterion.
     353Sep 12 18:04:52 <ubitux>        saste: git shortlog -ns --since '{2 years ago}' | head -n30 sounds like a fine list to me currently
     354Sep 12 18:04:56 <reynaldo>      yes, I had the impression that's what we were dealing with
     355Sep 12 18:05:35 <jamrial>       example, rcombs has been very active this year, but he has 48 commits
     356Sep 12 18:05:36 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: you wrote about "loose your right" and "regain it"
     357Sep 12 18:05:48 <Cigaes>        That is not relevant for the immediate vote.
     358Sep 12 18:06:02 <reynaldo>      oh, point there
     359Sep 12 18:06:11 <iive>  i have other proposla. let make a wide commitie from the people who are top committer in the last year. e.g. top 15 commiters ?
     360Sep 12 18:06:11 <jamrial>       (why am i sixth on that list, wth)
     361Sep 12 18:06:16 <reynaldo>      well, consider those guideline suggestions :)
     362Sep 12 18:06:25 <ubitux>        jamrial: redundant merges probably
     363Sep 12 18:06:47 <ubitux>        i shouldn't be counted though
     364Sep 12 18:06:57 <nevcairiel>    pretty hard to filter out the dupes
     365Sep 12 18:07:07 <nevcairiel>    unless you directly subtract the same list from libav
     366Sep 12 18:07:09 <BBB>   I have a secret way
     367Sep 12 18:07:14 <BBB>   right
     368Sep 12 18:07:14 <reynaldo>      iive: top commiters can change by the minute, you need something more stable
     369Sep 12 18:07:17 <ubitux>        i actually don't see dups
     370Sep 12 18:07:41 <nevcairiel>    send a patch to both libav and ffmpeg, and you get twice the commit count, is all i mean :D
     371Sep 12 18:07:52 <iive>  reynaldo: not with 15 people.
     372Sep 12 18:08:01 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: "top committers at $date".
     373Sep 12 18:08:33 <reynaldo>      I'd rather go with the voting right after X commit formula I proposeed, maybe we can assemble both lists and compare?
     374Sep 12 18:08:36 <reynaldo>      we are humas after all
     375Sep 12 18:08:42 <reynaldo>      one will make more sense, Im sure
     376Sep 12 18:08:43 <reynaldo>      ;)
     377Sep 12 18:08:51 <iive>  1. giving and taking voting rights gives bad vibe...
     378Sep 12 18:08:52 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: for a punctual choice, they are equivalent.
     379Sep 12 18:09:02 <reynaldo>      I understand at least BBB and saste already back that formula up ^
     380Sep 12 18:09:08 <iive>  2. having a lot of people arguing is bad.
     381Sep 12 18:10:06 <iive>  I think that Prakinson gives 12 as maximum of the people who can work productively in a group.
     382Sep 12 18:10:25 <jamrial>       i back it as long as there's some way to include people that don't fit into it but are still noticeably active in the project
     383Sep 12 18:10:34 <ubitux>        iive: most people won't vote
     384Sep 12 18:10:52 <BBB>   jamrial: you mean as a later extension to the formula?
     385Sep 12 18:10:53 <ubitux>        when there is an issue like pkg-config, at most 10 ppl will get involved
     386Sep 12 18:10:55 <reynaldo>      iive: have you heard of any community following this approach succesfully? I for ine dislike it for being too dynamic, you need stability in power to be able to make desicions that might spawn across several voting sessions
     387Sep 12 18:10:57 <iive>  most people don't want to get involved in politics
     388Sep 12 18:10:57 <ubitux>        most of the others don't care
     389Sep 12 18:11:00 <jamrial>       rcombs and kierank would be left out as is, and i consider them active
     390Sep 12 18:11:01 <reynaldo>      long term planing and what not
     391Sep 12 18:11:16 <BBB>   jamrial: llogan would be out also (he’s 40, not 50)
     392Sep 12 18:11:21 <ubitux>        jamrial: what if we reduce to 1 year?
     393Sep 12 18:11:34 <durandal_1707> let just vote for pkgconfig thing
     394Sep 12 18:11:38 <jamrial>       and so would saste
     395Sep 12 18:12:05 <reynaldo>      the voters commitee can garnt voting rights to ppl not initially selected, thats their prerogative
     396Sep 12 18:12:05 <Cigaes>        Me too.
     397Sep 12 18:12:12 <jamrial>       ubitux: i'm checking one year right now. rcomns, kierank, llogan and saste don't have 50 commits
     398Sep 12 18:12:17 <saste> jamrial, personally, I don't care as long as we have a bootstrap criteria
     399Sep 12 18:12:20 <iive>  yes, commit number is bad measure too. because one might have 100 1liners and another can have 2x 1000lines
     400Sep 12 18:12:35 <llogan2>       this is hard.
     401Sep 12 18:12:36 <Cigaes>        saste: idem for me.
     402Sep 12 18:12:41 <saste> also, I can send some typo-fixing patches if that matters ;-)
     403Sep 12 18:12:50 <reynaldo>      ok. I have a proposal
     404Sep 12 18:13:04 <reynaldo>      the one I descrived + include some ppl that should be left out in the initial
     405Sep 12 18:13:08 <reynaldo>      list
     406Sep 12 18:13:12 <reynaldo>      talking about saste, llogan, etc
     407Sep 12 18:13:43 <jamrial>       so i agree to use the 50 votes formula, but we should also use a different criteria for people active in the ml and/or irc (reviewing patches, being part of discussions, etc) that don't meet the commit criteria
     408Sep 12 18:13:44 <ubitux>        iive: but 100 one liners means the developer is kind of involved in many parts of the project, while a 2x 1000 lines is most likely someone very much scope to a very small area where he doesn't have much opinion on the overall project policy as long as it doesn't involve his pet
     409Sep 12 18:14:03 <ubitux>        (sorry long run sentence)
     410Sep 12 18:14:53 <saste> llogan2, in your case we should probably count also ffmpeg-web committs
     411Sep 12 18:15:01 <BBB>   so reynaldo’s proposal and have these people include additionals by majority vote?
     412Sep 12 18:15:05 <BBB>   saste: indeed
     413Sep 12 18:15:14 <reynaldo>      BBB: yes, I like that
     414Sep 12 18:15:20 <saste> anyway, I'm really fine with any objective criterion, then it can be fine-tuned later
     415Sep 12 18:15:26 <reynaldo>      great
     416Sep 12 18:15:29 <nevcairiel>    (if someone cares, this is a list from the last year with commits merged from libav excluded, since those really can't be counted "active in ffmpeg" right now
     417Sep 12 18:15:46 <reynaldo>      do we need to vote this or can we call it settled and move on?
     418Sep 12 18:15:59 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: if "include some ppl" is done by vote by the initial selection, then it is mostly what I argue for too, so +1.
     419Sep 12 18:16:16 <ubitux>        nevcairiel: so 20 first without libav looks sane?
     420Sep 12 18:16:28 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: thanks
     421Sep 12 18:16:42 <BBB>   so can we take that as decision then?
     422Sep 12 18:16:46 <reynaldo>      looks sane to me, missing some indeed but that can be sort out latter
     423Sep 12 18:16:46 <nevcairiel>    ubitux: sure, even includes saste again =p
     424Sep 12 18:16:47 <BBB>   who objects?
     425Sep 12 18:16:48 <saste> what if we include libav
     426Sep 12 18:16:59 <reynaldo>      what list is that one btw?
     427Sep 12 18:17:17 <saste> I don't want to make arbitrary distinctions, a committ is a committ
     428Sep 12 18:17:20 <reynaldo>      the one comming from my proposal ?
     429Sep 12 18:17:22 <Cigaes>        saste: if we merge, we have to redo the whole decision process with them anyway.
     430Sep 12 18:17:25 <reynaldo>      saste: +1
     431Sep 12 18:17:32 <saste> then if they don't care they won't vote
     432Sep 12 18:17:37 <Cigaes>        But it will help to have a united proposition.
     433Sep 12 18:17:46 <nevcairiel>    saste: people contributing to libav dont seem to have an interest in voting on ffmpeg decisions
     434Sep 12 18:18:01 <nevcairiel>    I would prefer getting people actually itnerested in ffmpeg
     435Sep 12 18:18:21 <nevcairiel>    the only people dropping out due to that are the main libav contributors anyway
     436Sep 12 18:18:44 <ubitux>        so 4-5 more people to add?
     437Sep 12 18:18:47 <reynaldo>      ok, just to confirm: we agreed on 50 commits granting you voting right and 1 year of inactivity making you loose it.
     438Sep 12 18:19:04 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: stop your sentence before "and".
     439Sep 12 18:19:23 <reynaldo>      and this WONT be discusses on the mailing list. Most ppl in this meetint care enough about the process to trust their judgement for the initial list
     440Sep 12 18:19:31 <ubitux>        Cigaes: we really need a time window
     441Sep 12 18:19:43 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: trying to cut the list a bit shorter, otherwise first council* coordination will be a pain
     442Sep 12 18:19:57 <reynaldo>      ubitux: +1
     443Sep 12 18:20:08 <Cigaes>        reynaldo / ubitux: we do not need a criterion to LOSE voting rights for the initial list.
     444Sep 12 18:20:30 <reynaldo>      we need, otheriwse it will be a huge and not really representative list
     445Sep 12 18:20:38 <ubitux>        yeah it's not about loosing but accounting in a given time window (--since '{X months ago}' or whatever)
     446Sep 12 18:20:49 <reynaldo>      ubitux: +1
     447Sep 12 18:20:55 <reynaldo>      a year is something I feel ok with
     448Sep 12 18:21:09 <reynaldo>      and matches our idea of regain* window latter on, not that it matters that much, just saying
     449Sep 12 18:21:14 <reynaldo>      seems to make sense
     450Sep 12 18:21:15 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: then your sentence was not correctly stated.
     451Sep 12 18:21:21 <Cigaes>        Let me try to rephrase:
     452Sep 12 18:21:29 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: might be, I suck at english too early on saturdays
     453Sep 12 18:21:31 <reynaldo>      :)
     454Sep 12 18:21:33 <iive>  Cigaes: you want it as "50 commits for 1 year granting you voting right"
     455Sep 12 18:22:06 <Cigaes>        iive: that was what I was going to write.
     456Sep 12 18:22:37 <reynaldo>      year being 2015 for the first list ot the last 365 days counting back from today ?
     457Sep 12 18:22:43 <reynaldo>      ot/or ?
     458Sep 12 18:22:49 <Cigaes>        But maybe "50 commits in total including X% in the last year" could be slightly better.
     459Sep 12 18:23:07 <reynaldo>      please dont go beyond rephrasing, we already agreed on a formula
     460Sep 12 18:23:27 <ubitux>        i propose to use a git command as formula
     461Sep 12 18:23:35 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: that would make 2014-09-12T15:00:00Z - 2015-09-12T15:00:00Z (let us take the start of the meeting as the reference point).
     462Sep 12 18:23:35 <iive>  365(+1) days on the day voting is called.
     463Sep 12 18:23:50 <Cigaes>        iive: dangerous.
     464Sep 12 18:24:00 <iive>  politics is dangerous
     465Sep 12 18:24:01 <Cigaes>        iive: once the criterium is stated, it can be gamed.
     466Sep 12 18:24:14 <iive>  that's why I'm serious about the lottery.
     467Sep 12 18:24:47 <saste> Cigaes, a bad criterion => still better than random choice
     468Sep 12 18:25:03 <Cigaes>        saste: of course.
     469Sep 12 18:25:11 <BBB>   so do we agree on this now?
     470Sep 12 18:25:17 <BBB>   I’d like to move to #3 at some point :)
     471Sep 12 18:25:21 <Cigaes>        saste: but if only past commits are taken into account, it can not be gamed.
     472Sep 12 18:25:21 <BBB>   (my family wants lunch)
     473Sep 12 18:25:30 *       cehoyos (~cehoyos at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     474Sep 12 18:25:42 <Cigaes>        So: 50 comits at the time of the start of the meeting rather than at the time of the vote.
     475Sep 12 18:25:43 <cehoyos>       Hi!
     476Sep 12 18:26:20 <reynaldo>      ook, rephrasing: List of initial voters is being decided today, we are giving them rights over whatever they choose to handle and the first group will be the people that have more than 49 commits during the last 365 days
     477Sep 12 18:26:27 <reynaldo>      please move on ok ?
     478Sep 12 18:26:52 <saste> reynaldo, ok
     479Sep 12 18:26:52 <cehoyos>       Sorrry for the late question:
     480Sep 12 18:27:05 <cehoyos>       What about merge commits (Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings)?
     481Sep 12 18:27:10 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: "during the 365 days before the beginning of the meeting"?
     482Sep 12 18:27:21 <BBB>   cehoyos: no merge commits, but merged commits are fine
     483Sep 12 18:27:28 <cehoyos>       Ty
     484Sep 12 18:27:30 <nevcairiel>    BBB: merging is hard work :(
     485Sep 12 18:27:31 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: yes, yesterday was day 1
     486Sep 12 18:27:41 <BBB>   nevcairiel: that’s true …
     487Sep 12 18:27:47 <Cigaes>        cehoyos: only Hendrik and Michael have a lot of those, so it does not matter.
     488Sep 12 18:27:55 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: UTC/GMT as reference TZ
     489Sep 12 18:28:00 <BBB>    219  Hendrik Leppkes
     490Sep 12 18:28:01 <reynaldo>      Im guessing thats well defined enough
     491Sep 12 18:28:03 <BBB>   nevcairiel: you’re safe :)
     492Sep 12 18:28:29 <saste> who can post the list somewhere, showing the git command?
     493Sep 12 18:28:31 <nevcairiel>    and I would argue that commits merged from libav shouldn't be counted, as that (1) gives several people an inflated number, and (2) people exclusively commiting for libav wouldnt really have any interesting in ffmpeg decisions at all
     494Sep 12 18:28:33 <Cigaes>        And now we see Clement trying to get back in the list of voters :-Þ
     495Sep 12 18:28:45 <reynaldo>      ok, saste, can you take care about publishing the list on the webpage ?
     496Sep 12 18:28:46 <cehoyos>       Cigaes: As said, I only asked for clarification
     497Sep 12 18:29:01 <BBB>    438  Clément Bœsch ?
     498Sep 12 18:29:09 <nevcairiel>    its a joke BBB :P
     499Sep 12 18:29:10 <BBB>   maybe my list is b0rk3d
     500Sep 12 18:29:16 <ubitux>        (Cigaes: you got me, exactly what i just said on #ffmpeg-devel :D)
     501Sep 12 18:29:19 <reynaldo>      saste: can you ?
     502Sep 12 18:29:30 <saste> reynaldo, not today for sure
     503Sep 12 18:29:35 <reynaldo>      maybe tomorrow ?
     504Sep 12 18:29:44 <saste> also, do you have a git command?
     505Sep 12 18:29:49 <reynaldo>      remeber the choosen timeframe please, just that
     506Sep 12 18:29:50 <cehoyos>       nevcairiel: That sounds like very important point that needs to be made 100% clear.
     507Sep 12 18:29:58 <saste> i'm not yet sure about the merged and merge committs
     508Sep 12 18:30:09 <saste> cehoyos, indeed
     509Sep 12 18:30:15 <nevcairiel>    some things get merged from branches specifically meant for ffmpeg
     510Sep 12 18:30:20 <nevcairiel>    those shuld be counted for sure
     511Sep 12 18:30:20 <reynaldo>      saste: I have not but I think ubitux had come up with one already
     512Sep 12 18:30:29 <Cigaes>        git shortlog -s -n --since=2014-09-12T15:00:00Z --until 2015-09-12T15:00:00Z
     513Sep 12 18:30:29 <nevcairiel>    but I would exclude libav merges at this time
     514Sep 12 18:30:38 <reynaldo>      otherwise we can sort it out
     515Sep 12 18:30:38 <BBB>   how?
     516Sep 12 18:30:43 <saste> ok, that list also include merged and merge committs?
     517Sep 12 18:30:48 <nevcairiel>    saste: yes
     518Sep 12 18:30:57 <saste> so I'm fine with that
     519Sep 12 18:31:00 <reynaldo>      I would exclude libav merges too
     520Sep 12 18:31:01 <Cigaes>        saste: my command count them.
     521Sep 12 18:31:05 <reynaldo>      i think we all kinda agree on that
     522Sep 12 18:31:14 <nevcairiel>    its not trivial to exclude them in one command however
     523Sep 12 18:31:35 <reynaldo>      Cigaes: would you be willing to work on the command
     524Sep 12 18:31:37 <BBB>   I just subtract the libav stats from the ffmpeg stats :)
     525Sep 12 18:31:39 <reynaldo>      we can review it latter on
     526Sep 12 18:31:44 <BBB>   ok, let’s move on?
     527Sep 12 18:31:46 <reynaldo>      just to make sure its doing the right thing
     528Sep 12 18:31:47 <nevcairiel>    you would have to run the same command on their repo and subtract the stats, yes
     529Sep 12 18:31:48 <reynaldo>      yes
     530Sep 12 18:31:50 <reynaldo>      lets move on
     531Sep 12 18:32:04 <ubitux>        (note: it can be a script in tools/ directory to raise the names)
     532Sep 12 18:32:12 <saste> I'd prefer to include all merged committs, but if it's just me I'll leave that at you
     533Sep 12 18:32:21 <Cigaes>        saste: +1
     534Sep 12 18:32:22 <reynaldo>      ubitux: sounds like a plan
     535Sep 12 18:32:32 <Cigaes>        Excluding them is sending the wrong message.
     536Sep 12 18:33:01 <Cigaes>        We are talking about Vittorio, Anton and Luca, and that is all unless I am mistaken.
     537Sep 12 18:33:02 <cehoyos>       Cigaes: What message is not including them and what message would be including them?
     538Sep 12 18:33:08 <cehoyos>       Martin
     539Sep 12 18:33:15 <nevcairiel>    diego probably too still
     540Sep 12 18:33:19 <cehoyos>       No
     541Sep 12 18:33:23 <nevcairiel>    although he vanished
     542Sep 12 18:33:48 <Cigaes>        Their contribution is technically good, their advice matter. And they probably would not want to vote anyway.
     543Sep 12 18:33:56 <Cigaes>        Diego is at 43.
     544Sep 12 18:34:14 <reynaldo>      please stop thinking on libav right now
     545Sep 12 18:34:17 <BBB>   I’m going to grab lunch, I support whatever you guys decide from this point onwards :)
     546Sep 12 18:34:19 <reynaldo>      it only complicates things
     547Sep 12 18:34:31 <reynaldo>      BBB just a minute please
     548Sep 12 18:34:32 <saste> nevcairiel, if they don't want to vote, they won't (as it's likely), but especially considering that we are considering to reunite the two project I won't make distinction with their committs
     549Sep 12 18:34:42 <ubitux>        yeah let's move on, it's details
     550Sep 12 18:34:44 <cehoyos>       reynaldo: sorry, but either a decision is made or no decision is made
     551Sep 12 18:34:50 <Cigaes>        saste: strong +1
     552Sep 12 18:34:53 <ubitux>        there are more important things to worry about wrt libav
     553Sep 12 18:34:58 <reynaldo>      Im not sure everyone is considering reuniting tbh
     554Sep 12 18:35:04 <reynaldo>      Id leave that to the voting comitee
     555Sep 12 18:35:05 <Cigaes>        The voting process must be chosen too.
     556Sep 12 18:35:19 <llogan2>       saste: fine with me
     557Sep 12 18:35:41 <reynaldo>      ok. So, can we settle on the initial criteria please ?
     558Sep 12 18:35:51 <saste> can we count about who wants to consider merged commits and not?
     559Sep 12 18:36:01 <reynaldo>      I understand the only thing pending is whether to count commits originating in libav
     560Sep 12 18:36:04 <reynaldo>      ?
     561Sep 12 18:36:07 <saste> reynaldo, yes
     562Sep 12 18:36:39 <saste> so we have in favour: cigaes, saste, llogan2
     563Sep 12 18:36:43 <Cigaes>        Can we postpone that to after we decide if we want to try and reunite?
     564Sep 12 18:36:52 <reynaldo>      ok, please say A if you want commit originating in libav to be counting in the initial formula, b otherwise. please dont write anything else
     565Sep 12 18:37:00 <reynaldo>      counted/
     566Sep 12 18:37:10 <nevcairiel>    strictly speaking its not only about those 4, but also those that post patches to both projects and get twice the count, although it doesnt seem to push anyone over the 50 today as it is
     567Sep 12 18:37:10 <saste> A
     568Sep 12 18:37:13 <reynaldo>      -------------------------------
     569Sep 12 18:37:14 <reynaldo>      B
     570Sep 12 18:37:15 <Cigaes>        Because basically, I would say: if we want to reunite, then we MUST include libav developers.
     571Sep 12 18:37:46 <saste> Cigaes, that's my point too, also it won't make any difference in practice since they won't probably vote anyway
     572Sep 12 18:38:06 <reynaldo>      thats a HUGE conditional for an initial voting group with unlimited powers
     573Sep 12 18:38:23 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: do you believe they will abuse it?
     574Sep 12 18:38:36 <ubitux>        B (because i think it's not clear right now if they want to use this vote for toxicity purpose or not, and i believe including them should be postponed - the metrics is about evaluating the personal involvement in ffmpeg)
     575Sep 12 18:38:36 <reynaldo>      I think its not worst the risk, even if nil
     576Sep 12 18:38:38 *       rcombs (rcombs at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     577Sep 12 18:38:42 <reynaldo>      worth/
     578Sep 12 18:38:43 <Cigaes>        We can not trust the initial voters and distrust them at the same time.
     579Sep 12 18:38:43 <saste> saste, so please let's vote on it, since we can't apparently settle
     580Sep 12 18:39:00 <reynaldo>      ok, we are B=2 A=1 cn you guys keep voting please
     581Sep 12 18:39:04 <Cigaes>        A
     582Sep 12 18:39:04 <nevcairiel>    B
     583Sep 12 18:39:17 <reynaldo>      B=4 A=1
     584Sep 12 18:39:17 <iive>   
     585Sep 12 18:39:26 <nevcairiel>    reynaldo can't count :)
     586Sep 12 18:39:27 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: Ahem...
     587Sep 12 18:39:34 <reynaldo>      oh, 3,2 sorry
     588Sep 12 18:39:34 <ubitux>        haha
     589Sep 12 18:39:36 <reynaldo>      :)
     590Sep 12 18:39:40 <Loriker>       A
     591Sep 12 18:39:54 <durandal_1707> B
     592Sep 12 18:40:11 <reynaldo>      4,3
     593Sep 12 18:40:34 <saste> still two minutes then we go on, please vote if you didn't and care about it
     594Sep 12 18:41:17 <ubitux>        is llogan2 vote accounted?
     595Sep 12 18:41:34 <atomnuker>     A
     596Sep 12 18:41:53 <saste> still one minute
     597Sep 12 18:42:59 <cehoyos>       B
     598Sep 12 18:43:15 <reynaldo>      ok, 2 minutes expired
     599Sep 12 18:43:18 <reynaldo>      initial group decided
     600Sep 12 18:43:19 <saste> any more votes?
     601Sep 12 18:43:27 <reynaldo>      the window expired already
     602Sep 12 18:43:30 <saste> allright
     603Sep 12 18:43:52 <reynaldo>      formula as descrived previously, not counting commits originating in libav
     604Sep 12 18:44:08 <saste> A=4 B=5
     605Sep 12 18:44:09 <reynaldo>      I think we can leave everything else to the voting commitee once its published by monday
     606Sep 12 18:44:17 <saste> so let's move on
     607Sep 12 18:44:20 <saste> VDD 2015
     608Sep 12 18:44:22 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: no, the voting process must be decided.
     609Sep 12 18:44:36 <reynaldo>      I trust the voting comitee can do that
     610Sep 12 18:44:43 <saste> some of us will be there
     611Sep 12 18:45:03 <Cigaes>        I propose: public ballots, on the mailing-list, 1 week deadline, and same kind of ballot than Debian.
     612Sep 12 18:45:19 <atomnuker>     Cigaes: yep, sounds good
     613Sep 12 18:45:35 <reynaldo>      votes dont need to be public for that matter, but again, this can be decided by the voting comittee itself
     614Sep 12 18:45:39 <saste> I think we will have some real-life meeting where to discuss things
     615Sep 12 18:45:50 <saste> Cigaes, cehoyos, will you be at VDD?
     616Sep 12 18:45:53 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: we do not need it, but it is simpler, no need for infrastructure, authentication, etc.
     617Sep 12 18:45:59 <reynaldo>      saste: when is vdd taking place ? next month?
     618Sep 12 18:46:01 <Cigaes>        saste: I will be there.
     619Sep 12 18:46:08 <Cigaes>        Next week.
     620Sep 12 18:46:09 <saste> reynaldo, next weekend, in paris
     621Sep 12 18:46:53 <cehoyos>       saste: Yes
     622Sep 12 18:46:55 <reynaldo>      I wont, would have loved to but just moved :/
     623Sep 12 18:47:04 <reynaldo>      need to be here for my family
     624Sep 12 18:47:11 <saste> cehoyos, good
     625Sep 12 18:47:18 <cehoyos>       You sure?
     626Sep 12 18:47:44 <saste> BBB, yayoi, ubitux, nevcairiel should be there as well
     627Sep 12 18:47:51 <saste> maybe llogan2?
     628Sep 12 18:47:51 <nevcairiel>    I am not
     629Sep 12 18:47:58 <saste> nevcairiel, too bad
     630Sep 12 18:48:17 <yayoi> i am really broke..i would love to meet your guys though..
     631Sep 12 18:48:24 <saste> anyway, if there is nothing to discuss here then we can move to the next point
     632Sep 12 18:48:35 <reynaldo>      yayoi: where are you based?
     633Sep 12 18:48:41 <yayoi> san francisco...
     634Sep 12 18:48:42 *       Sulik (4cfe4741 at gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     635Sep 12 18:48:44 <saste> yayoi, I believed you was going to attend, i was confused
     636Sep 12 18:48:57 <reynaldo>      yayoi: im in san jose, you can sure meet me ;)
     637Sep 12 18:49:04 <yayoi> let's do that :)
     638Sep 12 18:49:10 <reynaldo>      sure
     639Sep 12 18:49:17 <llogan2>       saste: unfortunately, i won't be there.
     640Sep 12 18:49:21 <saste> yayoi, Videolan foundation is going to refund travel and pay for hosting
     641Sep 12 18:49:31 <saste> the only thing is that you need to register in time
     642Sep 12 18:49:37 <reynaldo>      yeah, thats an option ^
     643Sep 12 18:49:46 <yayoi> well i asked VVD to fund me at registration.. for my air..but no answer.. so..
     644Sep 12 18:49:53 <yayoi> sorry VDD
     645Sep 12 18:50:02 <saste> yayoi, mmh OK :-(
     646Sep 12 18:50:04 <yayoi> oh i see
     647Sep 12 18:50:10 *       am_ (ca4fcb63 at gateway/web/freenode/ip. has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     648Sep 12 18:50:11 <saste> ok, let's move on to the next topic
     649Sep 12 18:50:12 <yayoi> it must be too late then
     650Sep 12 18:50:49 <Cigaes>        saste: if "next" is "4 outreachy", could we expedite 5 first?
     651Sep 12 18:51:02 <saste> Cigaes, allright, anyone against it?
     652Sep 12 18:51:08 <nevcairiel>    I assume we delegate #1 to the commitee now?
     653Sep 12 18:51:21 <saste> nevcariel: yes
     654Sep 12 18:51:27 <reynaldo>      short one: sponsoring structure, amounts, perks, etc. I begun drafting this last month, will send to the voters comitee for review once its public on monday
     655Sep 12 18:51:29 <saste> next topic: use of Github/Gitorious for pull requests
     656Sep 12 18:51:37 <reynaldo>      not really an issue, just thought about pointing it out ^
     657Sep 12 18:51:56 <saste> well, gitorious is dead, so this is only about github
     658Sep 12 18:52:11 <reynaldo>      saste: I'd say no but isnt this something that should be handled by the voters comitee ?
     659Sep 12 18:52:15 <saste> I think this could be decided by the voting committee as well
     660Sep 12 18:52:17 <saste> reynaldo, indeed
     661Sep 12 18:52:19 <reynaldo>      yes
     662Sep 12 18:52:32 <Cigaes>        For myself, I would very much prefer that all patches arrive on the mailing list as such.
     663Sep 12 18:52:38 <saste> i'm also against github pull requests, if they are not backed by mailing-list patches
     664Sep 12 18:52:54 <saste> anyone in favour of github pull requests?
     665Sep 12 18:53:10 <cehoyos>       Sorry, but afaict nobody from inside FFmpeg supports github pull requests, so there will be no voting necessary.
     666Sep 12 18:53:11 <reynaldo>      yeah, I think pretty much everyone out of highschool by now will agree on not using these web abominations as sources for changesets
     667Sep 12 18:53:22 <ubitux>        i like the ml exclusivity as well, in particular for archival purposes
     668Sep 12 18:53:23 <atomnuker>     I agree about mailing list only patches
     669Sep 12 18:53:27 <reynaldo>      +1
     670Sep 12 18:53:34 <saste> well, at least here we seem to agree
     671Sep 12 18:53:37 *       Sulik has quit (Quit: Page closed)
     672Sep 12 18:54:00 <saste> if we have no more comments we can proceed to the next point
     673Sep 12 18:54:03 <cehoyos>       The only question is if the current maintainer is for some funny reason forbidden to merge pull requests from github  that he likes
     674Sep 12 18:54:10 <jamrial>       someone mentioned adding a line to (which is shown on github) to let people know we don't accept pull requests
     675Sep 12 18:54:24 <reynaldo>      cehoyos: I wouldnt forgive that, no
     676Sep 12 18:54:34 <reynaldo>      just say that it sends the wrong message
     677Sep 12 18:54:37 <cehoyos>       Well, that is the only question...
     678Sep 12 18:54:45 <reynaldo>      but maybe a change is just too good to let it slip, who knows
     679Sep 12 18:55:03 <reynaldo>      jamrial: yes, that'd be a good idea
     680Sep 12 18:55:05 <reynaldo>      wana do it?
     681Sep 12 18:55:08 <cehoyos>       Sorry, I thought you were joking: Yes, this does happen
     682Sep 12 18:55:08 <llogan2>       i wish there was a way to disable it in github, but i don't think there is
     683Sep 12 18:55:23 <saste> maintainers are free to handle their pull requests as they will, I think
     684Sep 12 18:55:26 <jamrial>       and make it clear that git send-email is encouraged but not required, since some people seem to have problems getting it to run
     685Sep 12 18:55:33 <reynaldo>      saste: +1
     686Sep 12 18:55:43 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: if a merge request is too good to let it pass, send it to the mailing-list.
     687Sep 12 18:55:44 <saste> but we shouldn't advertise that method, since it doesn't work for most changes
     688Sep 12 18:55:46 <ubitux>        saste: depends if we allow merge commits outside the libav scope
     689Sep 12 18:55:58 <reynaldo>      but as a guideline I would take it out of the "recommended ways of contributing to FFmpeg" and all official documentation
     690Sep 12 18:56:02 <Cigaes>        jamrial: git send-email or git format-patch correctly attached.
     691Sep 12 18:56:06 <jamrial>       people will be discouraged if they need to tinker with git, but will not if they know they can attach a patch to an email
     692Sep 12 18:56:09 <jamrial>       yeah
     693Sep 12 18:56:25 <ubitux>        i really don't like the idea of loosing discussion about a patchset
     694Sep 12 18:56:33 <ubitux>        even if the maintainer didn't care about it at that time
     695Sep 12 18:56:35 <iive>  +1 git format-patch
     696Sep 12 18:56:38 <nevcairiel>    i really dont like format-patch, it just makes me copy-paste the patch into the mail myself to review it, but oh well
     697Sep 12 18:56:58 <llogan2>       nevcairiel: what client?
     698Sep 12 18:57:06 <Cigaes>        nevcairiel: I do not understand, format-patch is just the same thing as send-email done manually.
     699Sep 12 18:57:18 <jamrial>       nevcairiel: afaik most clients let you "quote" the text you select
     700Sep 12 18:57:42 <reynaldo>      yeah, thats a MUA issue, not a development issue
     701Sep 12 18:57:47 <nevcairiel>    no, send-email includes the patch in the body, while people using format-patch will attach it as an attachment, which my client offers me as a file, and not inline content i can directly quote and comment
     702Sep 12 18:57:50 <reynaldo>      lets not deviate though
     703Sep 12 18:58:13 <reynaldo>      do you guys have anything to discuss right now that the voting comitee should not be handling?
     704Sep 12 18:58:22 <Cigaes>        nevcairiel: this can be fixed on client side, let us discuss it later.
     705Sep 12 18:58:31 <saste> next point?
     706Sep 12 18:58:44 <reynaldo>      a brief on publishing the list of voters
     707Sep 12 18:58:49 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: let us not vote when we can agree.
     708Sep 12 18:59:07 <reynaldo>      this will be done by monday by saste, cigaes will send the script to /tools/ and we can take it from there
     709Sep 12 18:59:14 <reynaldo>      was this what we agreed on ?
     710Sep 12 18:59:17 <reynaldo>      just confirming
     711Sep 12 18:59:46 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: ??? what am I supposed to do?
     712Sep 12 19:00:06 <saste> reynaldo, i will publish the list to ffmpeg-devel
     713Sep 12 19:00:13 <reynaldo>      maybe Im wrong, give me just one sec to take a look at my backlog
     714Sep 12 19:00:16 <reynaldo>      saste: wprks
     715Sep 12 19:00:19 <reynaldo>      works/
     716Sep 12 19:00:37 <saste> allright, should we move to the next point?
     717Sep 12 19:00:45 <saste> which is: Outreachy funding for the next round (winter 2015)
     718Sep 12 19:00:45 <llogan2>       sure
     719Sep 12 19:00:54 <reynaldo>      just need to figure out who is providing the script saste
     720Sep 12 19:01:00 <reynaldo>      so you can have a list by monday
     721Sep 12 19:01:04 <reynaldo>      anyone volunteers ?
     722Sep 12 19:01:11 <reynaldo>      ubitux ^ ?
     723Sep 12 19:01:23 <Cigaes>        reynaldo: someone who voted B :-Þ
     724Sep 12 19:01:28 <ubitux>        not really :(
     725Sep 12 19:01:42 <reynaldo>      ok. I will
     726Sep 12 19:01:48 <llogan2>       yayoi 'n lglinskih: ping. we are now attempting to talk about Outreachy funding.
     727Sep 12 19:01:59 <yayoi> yes
     728Sep 12 19:02:05 <yayoi> i have a lot of questions actually
     729Sep 12 19:02:07 <Cigaes>        For Outreachy: I will probably have no time to mentor during this period, I will withdraw from the discussion mostly.
     730Sep 12 19:02:34 <yayoi> yeah outreachy is asking for 5 hours a week commitment for mentoring...
     731Sep 12 19:02:38 <saste> yes, the first question is if we have any volunteering mentor
     732Sep 12 19:02:45 <saste> then we can seek for the funding
     733Sep 12 19:02:50 <saste> or use part of our money
     734Sep 12 19:02:51 <yayoi> make sense
     735Sep 12 19:03:43 <michaelni>     saste, i might volunteer to mentor 1 applicant maybe, depends on applicants ad exact projects ...
     736Sep 12 19:03:46 <saste> which is about 8.5 K$ and 9.125 K€
     737Sep 12 19:03:56 <reynaldo>      saste: maybe we can start workingon an ideas page and proceed from there
     738Sep 12 19:04:02 <saste> reynaldo, ok
     739Sep 12 19:04:16 <saste> how much time do we have to apply?
     740Sep 12 19:04:28 <reynaldo>      not sure
     741Sep 12 19:04:37 <reynaldo>      but thats usually a bit flexible for us
     742Sep 12 19:04:42 <llogan2>       reynaldo: do you think samsung would be interested in funding or partial funding again?
     743Sep 12 19:04:43 <yayoi> i am not sure for participants org
     744Sep 12 19:04:45 <reynaldo>      we are in good terms with the org
     745Sep 12 19:05:00 <reynaldo>      llogan2: yes, I think and hope so. ust have to confirm
     746Sep 12 19:05:04 <reynaldo>      just/
     747Sep 12 19:05:06 <yayoi> it was not very clear as far as reading their website..
     748Sep 12 19:05:33 <reynaldo>      their website is never too clear tbh
     749Sep 12 19:05:37 <yayoi> i see
     750Sep 12 19:05:39 <llogan2>       i'll try to do a better job at mentioning the funding organizations.
     751Sep 12 19:05:49 <yayoi> but you can start accepting applicants.. end of the sep?
     752Sep 12 19:06:04 <yayoi> well i can ask them
     753Sep 12 19:06:17 <reynaldo>      llogan2: we can work together on that. I'd like to write a news entry about last one, thanking samsung for funding us twice at th every least
     754Sep 12 19:06:26 <yayoi> well if they sponsor one intern, their deadline is Nov2.
     755Sep 12 19:06:31 <yayoi> i mean for us
     756Sep 12 19:06:46 <llogan2>       reynaldo: ok. and maybe a summary of what was achieved.
     757Sep 12 19:07:05 <saste> BTW, at the moment only me and michaelni are deciding how to use the project fund
     758Sep 12 19:07:08 <reynaldo>      yeah, that was the idea
     759Sep 12 19:07:18 <reynaldo>      saste: and I think you guys rock at that
     760Sep 12 19:07:22 <saste> this should probably change once we have a voting committee
     761Sep 12 19:07:32 <reynaldo>      yes, it might
     762Sep 12 19:07:37 <reynaldo>      but Im happy with you guys doing it
     763Sep 12 19:07:43 <llogan2>       saste: can we afford a student if we don't get funding?
     764Sep 12 19:07:47 <reynaldo>      havent seen ppl arguing about it at least
     765Sep 12 19:08:13 <saste> llogan2, we have the money, so we can
     766Sep 12 19:08:30 <saste> llogan2, the question is how much money to use from our general fund
     767Sep 12 19:08:35 <reynaldo>      guys do we have any other pressing issue to discuss? I'd like to leave now
     768Sep 12 19:08:41 <reynaldo>      family weekend and stuff
     769Sep 12 19:08:44 <saste> at the moment this is the situation:
     770Sep 12 19:08:58 <saste> FFmpeg SPI general fund: 8446.80 $
     771Sep 12 19:08:59 <michaelni>     saste, its the people on the ML deciding on funds really in theory IIRC what we agreed on
     772Sep 12 19:09:12 <saste> FFmpeg SPI OPW fund: 23.40
     773Sep 12 19:09:31 <saste> FFmpeg ffis fund: 9125 €
     774Sep 12 19:09:50 <reynaldo>      ok, leaving. Glad we made some desicions & happy to help. see you guys around o.
     775Sep 12 19:09:53 <reynaldo>      o/
     776Sep 12 19:09:55 <saste> michaelni, yes, in practice in case there is no consensus we need to both agree
     777Sep 12 19:10:13 <saste> reynaldo, see you, thanks
     778Sep 12 19:10:21 <llogan2>       yayoi: btw, i will try to take a look at your email template sometime soon, just so you know it isn't being ignored
     779Sep 12 19:10:28 <michaelni>     reynaldo, have fun!
     780Sep 12 19:10:34 <yayoi> sure
     781Sep 12 19:10:35 <reynaldo>      saste: will ping you when the script is ready
     782Sep 12 19:10:38 <reynaldo>      thank guys
     783Sep 12 19:10:39 <reynaldo>      bye bye
     784Sep 12 19:10:56 <yayoi> bye see you in san jose :)
     785Sep 12 19:11:09 <saste> should we move on to the next topic?
     786Sep 12 19:11:22 <saste> yayoi, anything else to say/comment about?
     787Sep 12 19:11:30 <yayoi> not at this moment
     788Sep 12 19:11:45 <yayoi> i like to know how many will be a mentor and fund needs to be raiseed or not
     789Sep 12 19:12:00 <llogan2>       we could always use funds.
     790Sep 12 19:12:06 <saste> yayoi, at least we have a mentor, michaelni
     791Sep 12 19:12:07 <yayoi> true
     792Sep 12 19:12:16 <yayoi> but my question is mostly logistics
     793Sep 12 19:12:26 <saste> michaelni, do you agree to use our money if we don't find a sponsor or a partial sponsor?
     794Sep 12 19:12:35 <yayoi> like bank account and etc...
     795Sep 12 19:12:44 <yayoi> also contact list would be nice..
     796Sep 12 19:12:59 <michaelni>     saste, no objection from me but i would prefer to find a sponsor
     797Sep 12 19:13:09 <saste> michaelni, same for me
     798Sep 12 19:13:14 <llogan2>       yayoi: a sponsor contact list? I don't think we have one.
     799Sep 12 19:13:18 <yayoi> oh
     800Sep 12 19:13:28 <yayoi> okay how you get donation usually?
     801Sep 12 19:13:32 <saste> so let's try to find a sponsor to cover at least part of the expense
     802Sep 12 19:13:53 <saste> yayoi,
     803Sep 12 19:14:05 <saste> or we contact sponsors directly, like in the case of samsung
     804Sep 12 19:14:10 <yayoi> right
     805Sep 12 19:14:18 <yayoi> but don't they give you their contact information though?
     806Sep 12 19:14:32 <yayoi> like at the end of the year,,, i assume they want their tax document etc??
     807Sep 12 19:14:35 <saste> yayoi, ask reynaldo, he was dealing with that
     808Sep 12 19:14:41 <yayoi> oh okay
     809Sep 12 19:14:46 <yayoi> i will
     810Sep 12 19:15:09 *       am_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
     811Sep 12 19:15:14 <saste> next point is: any other business
     812Sep 12 19:15:24 <llogan2>       yayoi: we will also make a news entry, tweets, etc.
     813Sep 12 19:15:35 <yayoi> nice
     814Sep 12 19:15:41 <llogan2>       begg...asking for monies
     815Sep 12 19:15:42 <saste> about the use of the money: it's something we should handle once we have a decision system
     816Sep 12 19:15:42 <yayoi> are you going to update the website?
     817Sep 12 19:16:04 <saste> possibly if we go with a committee that should be decided by the committee
     818Sep 12 19:16:07 <llogan2>       yeah, unless i forget or get lazy
     819Sep 12 19:16:20 <yayoi> haha
     820Sep 12 19:16:33 *       reynaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
     821Sep 12 19:17:14 <llogan2>       actually, i just thought of a local organization i could ask. i know the director personally.
     822Sep 12 19:17:23 <yayoi> nice
     823Sep 12 19:17:45 <durandal_1707> can we talk about lavfi limitations?
     824Sep 12 19:18:12 <yayoi> well please let me know if you are happy about the letter
     825Sep 12 19:18:27 <saste> so let's move to the next topic?
     826Sep 12 19:18:28 <yayoi> then i will start sending the email to the company i could think of potentially give the money to the project
     827Sep 12 19:18:33 <llogan2>       will do. may take me a few days to get to
     828Sep 12 19:18:43 <llogan2>       saste: ok.
     829Sep 12 19:19:02 <saste> last point is about any other business
     830Sep 12 19:19:07 <jamrial>       durandal_1707: i don't think that requires to be discussed here. it can be done in the devel channel just fine
     831Sep 12 19:19:24 <saste> durandal_1707, I'm fine if you want to discuss it here, but agree with jamrial
     832Sep 12 19:19:54 <saste> especially since we're over three hours with the meeting
     833Sep 12 19:20:20 <saste> no it's over two hours in truth
     834Sep 12 19:20:23 <durandal_1707> on ml list my questsions get unanswered...
     835Sep 12 19:20:39 <saste> durandal_1707, allright go on
     836Sep 12 19:21:42 <durandal_1707> well, one of it is limited query_formats function
     837Sep 12 19:22:07 <jamrial>       i remember ubitux wanted to discuss how to handle lavfi regarding subtitles, but it required a decission about abi compatibility
     838Sep 12 19:22:16 <llogan2>       durandal_1707: sometimes i find your replies hard to read but i blame gmail for breaking quoting (and i guess my client). but trimming the relevent section could help.
     839Sep 12 19:22:52 <cehoyos>       Sorry that I have been late: What was the outcome of the compatibility discussion? We still need to change bitrate, probesize and analyzeudration to 64bitm either with HAVE_INCOMPATIBLE_LIBAV_ABI or without---
     840Sep 12 19:23:07 <durandal_1707> I can just list bunch of them but seems Cigaes and ubitux are gone
     841Sep 12 19:23:19 <ubitux>        no i'm here
     842Sep 12 19:23:28 <saste> cehoyos, that will be decided by the voting committee
     843Sep 12 19:23:36 <ubitux>        the problem with subtitles in lavfi is that i need to redesign the api/abi of subtitles
     844Sep 12 19:23:42 <cehoyos>       In two months? For the next bump?
     845Sep 12 19:23:58 <ubitux>        if we redefine our politics wrt to abi compat with libav etc, it might remotivate me to get done with my stuff
     846Sep 12 19:24:19 <jamrial>       so the abi discussion will be left for the voting committee in the end?
     847Sep 12 19:24:27 <saste> jamrial, I think so
     848Sep 12 19:24:38 <iive>  who here is to keep the ABI?
     849Sep 12 19:24:55 <saste> since it wasn't possible to find an agreement here, and it looked like it was an important decision to take without a formal decision system
     850Sep 12 19:25:12 <cehoyos>       I will soon send a patch adding HAVE_INCOMPATIBLE_LIBAV_ABI to the definitions of probesize and analyzeduration, please review, because I will push soon!
     851Sep 12 19:25:18 <jamrial>       afaik nobody here wants to keep it. the only thing that was talked about was how to drop it (soname bump or not, etc)
     852Sep 12 19:25:20 <michaelni>     the existing format negotiation and merging resulted out of the wish for a strict limit on how far to be away from the global optimal solution for arbitraray filter graphs we are with the amount of inserted converts. But this was never fully implemented so the current system kind of sucks
     853Sep 12 19:25:29 <cehoyos>       The bump was already days ago=-(
     854Sep 12 19:25:48 <cehoyos>       jamrial: No, the thing missing is a commit messageiirc
     855Sep 12 19:25:59 <iive>  let's keep the voting for matters that cannot be resolved otherwise
     856Sep 12 19:25:59 <cehoyos>       We just bumped, so we don't have to bump again.
     857Sep 12 19:26:12 <michaelni>     durandal_1707, so yes something should be done wih query_formats, iam not sure what is best though
     858Sep 12 19:26:14 <jamrial>       cehoyos: please don't push abi patches without review, and especially not before we reach a consensus about the whole dela
     859Sep 12 19:26:15 <jamrial>       *deal
     860Sep 12 19:26:30 <cehoyos>       The consensus was to go to 64 bit!
     861Sep 12 19:26:44 <cehoyos>       Please read the mailing list archives about it!
     862Sep 12 19:26:56 <durandal_1707> I need to decide out format depending on input format
     863Sep 12 19:27:00 <jamrial>       i'm talking about abi compatibility, not that especific change
     864Sep 12 19:27:24 <durandal_1707> And eagain sucks for that
     865Sep 12 19:27:35 <cehoyos>       I don't care about the compatibility: Everybody wants to drop it, nobody has written a commit message.
     866Sep 12 19:27:40 <ubitux>        (i need that for a local patch as well)
     867Sep 12 19:27:52 <cehoyos>       (I will not do it because I don't care if it gets dropped or not.)
     868Sep 12 19:29:23 <jamrial>       iive: i don't want to keep it, but i also don't want the soname to get a bump to 1xx like ganesh or Cigaes suggested
     869Sep 12 19:30:01 <cehoyos>       Aren't threse two completely unrelated issues?
     870Sep 12 19:30:53 <jamrial>       no
     871Sep 12 19:31:05 <jamrial>       anyway, back on track. saste?
     872Sep 12 19:31:38 <iive>  is ganesh here?
     873Sep 12 19:32:15 <iive>  Cigaes: would you repeat why you want to (keep) minor +100 ?
     874Sep 12 19:32:17 <jamrial>       don't think so
     875Sep 12 19:32:33 <jamrial>       iive: not minor
     876Sep 12 19:32:43 <iive>  patch
     877Sep 12 19:33:06 <ubitux>        you mean micro?
     878Sep 12 19:33:12 <jamrial>       ganesh patch was to bump major to 1xx. i don't want that
     879Sep 12 19:33:15 <michaelni>     durandal_1707, i agree but i dont know atm how to best solve it
     880Sep 12 19:33:15 <ubitux>        it's important to keep micro 100+
     881Sep 12 19:33:19 <iive>  micro
     882Sep 12 19:33:19 <jamrial>       micro should remain 100 as minimu,m yes
     883Sep 12 19:33:50 <iive>  why?
     884Sep 12 19:34:45 <jamrial>       <ubitux> note: we still need to keep the .100 micro as a mean to differentiate libraries, otherwise checks are going to be a pain for people trying to support post & past 3.0 + libav
     885Sep 12 19:34:56 <durandal_1707> michaelni: for simple filters use current solution, for others build relation map from input to output formats
     886Sep 12 19:35:26 <michaelni>     durandal_1707, yes thats what iam thinking of too
     887Sep 12 19:35:33 <michaelni>     but iam unsure about details
     888Sep 12 19:35:53 <iive>  ok. then micro+100 remains.
     889Sep 12 19:36:11 <michaelni>     the system must work with arbitrary filter graphs, with loops and stuff
     890Sep 12 19:36:24 <iive>  is there anything else to decide about ABI compat?
     891Sep 12 19:37:56 <jamrial>       what to do with major. ganesh, Cigaes and others want to bump to 1xx. I personally don't
     892Sep 12 19:38:05 <ubitux>        what's the purpose?
     893Sep 12 19:39:02 <iive>  since micro is already bumped, what would major bump be about?
     894Sep 12 19:39:24 *       J_Darnley has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
     895Sep 12 19:39:29 *       jlfhdvfjabsdfg (~J_Darnley at has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
     896Sep 12 19:39:31 *       jlfhdvfjabsdfg is now known as J_Darnley
     897Sep 12 19:40:02 <iive>  I think their proposal is major to be bumped instead. However app script compatibility would be problem.
     898Sep 12 19:41:05 <jamrial>       the idea of bumping major to something different than libav is to stop distributing two incompatible libraries with the same soname, basically
     899Sep 12 19:41:32 <iive>  but they would still be with same soname
     900Sep 12 19:41:33 <jamrial>       but as nevcairiel pointed out earlier today, we have been technically doing that all this time anyway
     901Sep 12 19:42:33 *       kurosu (Kurosu at 2a01:e35:8ae7:63a0:199a:f324:6481:cf2d) has left #ffmpeg-meeting ("Leaving")
     902Sep 12 19:43:27 <iive>  I think debian uses suffix, so the libs are
     903Sep 12 19:44:10 <jamrial>       yeah, that was mentioned as an argument in favor of keeping major versions as they are right now
     904Sep 12 19:44:56 <iive>  so is there anything else to decide about ABI compat?
     905Sep 12 19:46:27 <saste> anything else?
     906Sep 12 19:46:34 <saste> or should we close the meeting?
     907Sep 12 19:46:49 <saste> technical discussion can go on #ffmpeg-devel and in the ML
     908Sep 12 19:47:31 <jamrial>       yeah, we can close the meeting i guess
     909Sep 12 19:47:44 <saste> allright
     910Sep 12 19:47:50 <saste> so the meeting is closed
     911Sep 12 19:48:03 <saste> i'm going to publish the log on ffmpeg-devel soon
     912Sep 12 19:48:18 <saste> thanks all for your time and contribution!
     913Sep 12 19:48:36 <jamrial>       alright. thanks everyone as well
     914Sep 12 19:48:51 *       jamrial (~jamrial at has left #ffmpeg-meeting
     915Sep 12 19:49:01 *       atomnuker (~atomnuker at 2001:19f0:6800:89a5:5400:ff:fe0e:35da) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
     916Sep 12 19:49:21 *       yayoi has quit (Quit: yayoi)
     917Sep 12 19:49:29 *       nevcairiel (quassel at WoWUIDev/WoWAce/Ace3/nevcairiel) has left #ffmpeg-meeting (" - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.")
     918Sep 12 19:49:57 *       ubitux (~ubitux at has left #ffmpeg-meeting ("WeeChat 1.1.1")