In brief, On Thu, Apr 2, 2026, at 7:16 PM, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel wrote: > Instead of applying that apparent consensus, or first announcing that a > vote would be started, Niklas opened a vote.
It was announced over two different channels: 1. On the mailing list: https://lists.ffmpeg.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/ZQVTFLYU7ZCMRLN46P2UHWXSPNDBWSAV/ 2. On the issue tracker: https://code.ffmpeg.org/FFmpeg/FFmpeg/pulls/22546#issuecomment-32978 > 2. The set of choices was defined by Niklas, while others had very > little time to comment. I explicitly said that we needed more time and > more discussion. This is not true; most of the options were proposed by others, not me. Also, in two weeks of discussion, nobody so far has proposed additional options. I asked you about five times what options you think are missing, and received no reply. > 3. This is a vote about how to integrate checkasm, started by one of > the main checkasm authors, with checkasm authors also participating in > the vote. At the very least, that raises a conflict-of-interest > question that should be addressed explicitly before relying on such a > vote. This is a vote about what the FFmpeg community prefers, and mainly affects the FFmpeg project. The impact on the checkasm project is minimal. > A vote should be a last resort after discussion has failed, not a > substitute for discussion. > > [...] > > In my view, this vote should either not happen at all, because we > seemed close to consensus, or it should be restarted and done properly. For context, 6 different developers have expressed mutually incompatible preferences, and at least three people have agreed that a vote is the best solution. Whether or not you believe the vote to be legitimate, I will resubmit the PR based on the results of this vote. _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
