Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project

From: Stefano Sabatini <stefasab(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Brockway <robert(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
Cc: SPI General List <spi-general(at)spi-inc(dot)org>, Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project
Date: 2012-05-29 00:30:58
Message-ID: 20120529003057.GF3619@arborea
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

In data Friday 2012-05-25 08:29:11 +1000, Robert Brockway ha scritto:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >Robert Brockway writes ("FFmpeg as SPI associated project"):
> >...
> >>4. Stefano Sabatini is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision
> >> maker and SPI liaison for FFmpeg. Successors will be appointed
> >> following a concensus on the ffmpeg-devel(at)ffmpeg(dot)org mailing list. If
> >> a concensus cannot be achieved an election for the SPI liaison will be
> >> held among members of the ffmpeg-devel(at)ffmpeg(dot)org mailing list.
> >
> >I don't think this is correct.
> >
> >I went to look at the ffpmeg-devel list
> >
> >
> >and Stefano is not the project's autocrat, which is what
> >"authoritative decision maker" would mean to me.

Yes I'm not an autocrat ;-). That said from my reading of the SPI
associated project HOWTO i see no mention that the liaison must
coincide with the project leader/maintainer/BDFL/whatever.

Some reasons for which we opted to have this power "division": first
and foremost, avoid to charge the current project maintainer with more
administrative burden, limit the power/harm/abuse of a single decision
maker with regards to funds management (at the cost of a potential
slow down of the decision process), and at the same time give more
"legitimation" to the approved decision since it has to be approved by
at least two persons.

(Currently we devised a mechanism where the liaison approves a
request, and the project maintainer can veto it during a one week

Note also that still nothing is cast in stone, so we can still make
changes in case there is the need to comply with SPI rules.

> >That avoids the FFmpeg project having to invent a formal governance
> >structure just for its dealings with SPI. I would rather not force
> >associated projects down that path unless they want it for themselves.
> Well I think FFmpeg set up the structure that SPI requires of all
> associated projects, a post of "project liaison" and a process to
> determine successors to the current project liaison.
> >Stefano, does this seem right to you ?


> I still think the existing wording is correct but I have no problem
> revising the proposal if necessary. Let's see what Stefano and the
> rest of the community say on this. There is plenty of time before
> the next board meeting for a discussion.



Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ian Jackson 2012-05-31 12:33:34 Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project
Previous Message Robert Brockway 2012-05-24 22:29:11 Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project