This FFmeeting was hosted on ​irc://irc.freenode.net/ffmpeg-meeting on 2015-09-12, at 15 UTC.

Sep 12 17:00:59 <saste>	allright time to go
Sep 12 17:01:18 <saste>	i summoned this meeting to discuss some relevant topics
Sep 12 17:01:27 *	Shiz (~shiz at hydrogenium.shiz.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:02:07 <saste>	you can see in the topics the pastebin containing the topics of the day to discuss
Sep 12 17:02:22 <saste>	http://pastebin.com/e6Q0pY6Z
Sep 12 17:02:29 <saste>	first topic is
Sep 12 17:02:41 <saste>	ABI compatibility policy
Sep 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
Sep 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?
Sep 12 17:03:50 <atomnuker>	wasn't wm4 the person who proposed it in the first place? where is he?
Sep 12 17:03:54 <saste>	I don't know, maybe someone can spend a few words describing the proposed options
Sep 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)
Sep 12 17:04:13 <nevcairiel>	well the options are pretty simple, do or don't
Sep 12 17:04:23 <saste>	then we can delay the voting to any other means, not necessarily we have to decide/vote right now
Sep 12 17:04:39 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: indeed, that is the root alternative; there are a few subquestions after this is decided.
Sep 12 17:04:50 <ubitux>	atomnuker: wm4 kind of ragequited irc because it wasn't going fast enough apparently; try to /invite him
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:05:13 <atomnuker>	I'll ping him on ffmpeg-devel, that should get his attention
Sep 12 17:05:50 <ubitux>	we probably need to agree about how we "advertise" the policy
Sep 12 17:06:02 <ubitux>	be it a news, or a dedicated pages to "current goals"
Sep 12 17:06:18 <ubitux>	just to ease taking decisions and keeping up with them
Sep 12 17:06:23 <BBB>	so the discussion was more about how it was advertised or “how the patch was concealing its purpose”, right?
Sep 12 17:07:12 *	Easyfab (~chatzilla at ip-62-241-112-16.evc.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:07:21 *	Easyfab (~chatzilla at ip-62-241-112-16.evc.net) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:07:23 <Cigaes>	BBB: from my PoV, right; I have mixed opinions on the decision itself.
Sep 12 17:07:31 <BBB>	who was actually advocating _for_ keeping the abi compat options (as opposed to the discussion around it being concealed)?
Sep 12 17:07:47 <nevcairiel>	I don't think anyone was directly for keeping it
Sep 12 17:07:48 *	Easyfab (~chatzilla at ip-62-241-112-16.evc.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:08:18 <nevcairiel>	The discussion mostly went in circles around the policy issue
Sep 12 17:08:24 *	llogan2 (lou at 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe70:2ed2) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:08:50 <BBB>	right, I’m re-reading it now
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:09:17 <BBB>	so …
Sep 12 17:09:36 <BBB>	cehoyos isn’t here, is he?
Sep 12 17:09:45 <nevcairiel>	dont think so
Sep 12 17:09:49 <nevcairiel>	unless he uses a new name
Sep 12 17:10:08 *	jamrial (~jamrial at 181.22.42.38) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:10:13 <BBB>	does nicolas do irc?
Sep 12 17:10:25 <nevcairiel>	thats Cigaes i thought
Sep 12 17:10:51 <BBB>	ah :) ok sorry didn’t know
Sep 12 17:11:01 <BBB>	all makes sense now
Sep 12 17:11:13 <saste>	so we're basically about topic #2, the policy decision process
Sep 12 17:11:23 <ubitux>	it's kind of related
Sep 12 17:11:28 <BBB>	one sort of morphed into the other… we can do #2 before we do #1
Sep 12 17:11:32 <BBB>	that might make more sense
Sep 12 17:11:37 <saste>	do you have technical arguments to discuss about the ABI policy to adopt
Sep 12 17:11:52 <saste>	or things which were not discussed on the ML
Sep 12 17:11:56 <nevcairiel>	unless someone wants to speak for keeping it?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:13:02 <ubitux>	yeah, could be just that
Sep 12 17:13:06 <nevcairiel>	I don
Sep 12 17:13:18 <nevcairiel>	I don't think a  news entry or something is needed, changelog is mandatory of course
Sep 12 17:13:28 <nevcairiel>	the feature seems hardly used
Sep 12 17:13:34 <nevcairiel>	(if at all)
Sep 12 17:13:42 <ubitux>	we had a section for important behaviour changes in 2.6 
Sep 12 17:13:45 <ubitux>	iirc
Sep 12 17:13:50 <BBB>	APIChanges also exists
Sep 12 17:13:54 <jamrial>	what would happen with the sonames if we drop the ABI compatibility policy?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:14:18 <saste>	so a news entry could be useless in that case
Sep 12 17:14:29 *	yayoi (~sndh at 204.28.118.156) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:15:04 <BBB>	jamrial: how did we fix that in the past?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:15:10 <BBB>	jamrial: is that why we have a 100 delta?
Sep 12 17:15:40 <Cigaes>	Distributing two incompatible libraries with the same SONAME is irresponsible.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:15:55 <Cigaes>	Bumping the major version once and for all is a simple solution.
Sep 12 17:16:12 <BBB>	so can we just bump to a different major than libav?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:16:21 <BBB>	like, they use libavcodec.57, we use libavcodec.58?
Sep 12 17:16:30 <BBB>	(or the inverse, I don’t really care)
Sep 12 17:16:32 *	J_Darnley has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
Sep 12 17:16:33 <nevcairiel>	strictly speaking we already distribute incompatible libraries with the same soname
Sep 12 17:16:33 <Cigaes>	BBB: no, because they will eventually use 58.
Sep 12 17:16:47 <nevcairiel>	because noone uses the flag to enable the compat mode
Sep 12 17:17:03 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: yes, but the ABI is mostly compatible even without it.
Sep 12 17:17:05 *	J_Darnley (~J_Darnley at d51A44418.access.telenet.be) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:17:12 <nevcairiel>	"mostly" is irrelevant :)
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:17:24 <atomnuker>	Cigaes: IIRC there were plans to talk about that at VDD
Sep 12 17:17:30 <michaelni>	will we bump to 200 if theres another fork that doest bump ?
Sep 12 17:17:40 <jamrial>	nevcairiel: true, and in general people that use one project don't use the other
Sep 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 
Sep 12 17:17:53 <BBB>	I think sonames conflict is something to be discussed with libav
Sep 12 17:18:05 <BBB>	so the most efficient way to deal with it may be at vdd, not here
Sep 12 17:18:13 <iive>	we can also rename the libraries
Sep 12 17:18:13 <BBB>	since “they” are not here to agree on a solution with us
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:18:45 <iive>	we can use the debian naming scheme by default.
Sep 12 17:19:05 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: agreed.
Sep 12 17:20:33 <BBB>	saste: I propose we move to #2 and then revisit #1 afterwards if needed
Sep 12 17:20:41 <nevcairiel>	(a proper fork should rename their SONAME entirely, anyway)
Sep 12 17:20:47 <Cigaes>	BBB: seconded.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:20:58 <atomnuker>	nevcairiel: I agree as well
Sep 12 17:21:03 <saste>	BBB: I agree
Sep 12 17:21:16 <Cigaes>	jamrial: distros are not the only distribution channel.
Sep 12 17:21:20 <saste>	if there are no objections we are moving to point #2
Sep 12 17:21:32 <nevcairiel>	jamrial: or they ship renamed binaries, ie using the --build-suffix option
Sep 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?
Sep 12 17:23:07 <BBB>	you’re very quiet michaelni 
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:23:26 <michaelni>	BBB, ive nothing to say :)
Sep 12 17:23:48 <Cigaes>	jamrial: not only. If someone does "./configure --enable-shared && make install", it should not break their system either.*
Sep 12 17:24:10 <saste>	it looks to me the most controversial point is having/not having vetoes
Sep 12 17:24:47 <BBB>	well there’s also the more general “when consensus cannot be reached, now what?”
Sep 12 17:24:55 <saste>	with one formal or de-facto leader it was relatively easy to set controversies allowing the leader to decide
Sep 12 17:24:56 <BBB>	vetoes are just one part of that question
Sep 12 17:25:36 <llogan2>	how do other big projects deal with the situation?
Sep 12 17:25:52 <saste>	anybody is for or against a committe or something?
Sep 12 17:25:58 <saste>	no more than three people
Sep 12 17:26:00 <BBB>	some have a bofh
Sep 12 17:26:16 <BBB>	others have a committee (although that didn’t go well for xfree86)
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:26:19 <nevcairiel>	llogan2:  They usually tend to have a subsystem maintainer or an overall leader to decide, from what I hear
Sep 12 17:26:20 <saste>	that's a form of leadership of course, regarding the overall project design
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:26:56 <BBB>	(that leads to xfree86 situations)
Sep 12 17:27:00 <jamrial>	we could also have different people for different parts of the project. maintainers if you will
Sep 12 17:27:16 <BBB>	jamrial: well, we already have that, this is more about global decisions
Sep 12 17:27:20 <saste>	jamrial, the problem is about deciding overall design, like the ABI things
Sep 12 17:27:21 <BBB>	or are you advocating global maintainers?
Sep 12 17:27:23 *	reynaldo (~rverdejo at c-67-169-80-122.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:27:28 <BBB>	(like a bofh :) )
Sep 12 17:27:36 <saste>	local maintainer always worked pretty well with FFmpeg, I think
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:27:58 <reynaldo>	Sat 8:30AM here, thanks and hello o/ :)
Sep 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).
Sep 12 17:28:11 <BBB>	right
Sep 12 17:28:15 <atomnuker>	the MAINTAINERS file sometimes list people from libav as well
Sep 12 17:28:48 <saste>	atomnuker, cleaning MAINTAINERS is from hard to impossible, with no explicit reply from old maintainers
Sep 12 17:28:48 *	lglinskih has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
Sep 12 17:28:54 <llogan2>	reynaldo: im to your timezone on the left
Sep 12 17:29:21 <ubitux>	what were the last things the project had problems to make up its mind?
Sep 12 17:29:31 <nevcairiel>	ubitux: pkg-config :D
Sep 12 17:29:34 <ubitux>	i remember pkg-config... and this recent abi thing, but what else?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:29:45 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: yeah right, but is there anything else in these last 4 years?
Sep 12 17:29:55 <jamrial>	BBB: maybe something like said committe, but one for different part of the code
Sep 12 17:30:05 <llogan2>	saste: a grat purge of MAINTAINERS?
Sep 12 17:30:05 <Cigaes>	ubitux: subtitles character encoding API.
Sep 12 17:30:17 <reynaldo>	llogan2: !
Sep 12 17:30:19 <ubitux>	actually, same question about similar problems libav had without leader to take a decision
Sep 12 17:30:37 <BBB>	libav tried to find common agreement
Sep 12 17:30:38 <nevcairiel>	libav didnt really have those discussions
Sep 12 17:30:51 <iive>	they probably had the on the phone
Sep 12 17:30:52 <BBB>	and if that didn’t happen, the developer typiclly fell off the boat
Sep 12 17:30:56 <nevcairiel>	when someone objects, its usually on a technical level
Sep 12 17:31:06 <nevcairiel>	or yeah, the developer went away
Sep 12 17:31:11 <nevcairiel>	like mru
Sep 12 17:31:20 <BBB>	or me :)
Sep 12 17:31:34 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: you know for a fact that mru went away because of disagreements?
Sep 12 17:31:50 <ubitux>	loosing a developer everytime there is a disagreement is kind of an expensive cost
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:32:58 <saste>	in case we want a committe, we need some metrics to decide if a developer can have voting rights
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:33:11 <llogan2>	BBB: ...rotational makes sense to me.
Sep 12 17:33:19 <Cigaes>	saste: that is the big problem indeed.
Sep 12 17:33:55 <BBB>	I think it’s a sign that leaderless without a disagreement resolution mechanism does not work
Sep 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
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:34:28 <BBB>	that’s true
Sep 12 17:34:32 *	J_Darnley has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
Sep 12 17:34:39 <BBB>	a rotation can mean you stay if others are ok with it
Sep 12 17:34:42 <llogan2>	but what if others want to participate?
Sep 12 17:34:56 *	J_Darnley (~J_Darnley at d51a44418.access.telenet.be) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:35:12 <nevcairiel>	then the other developers are clearly not satisfied anymore, and the condition doesnt apply .)
Sep 12 17:35:39 <Cigaes>	llogan2: then said others are not satisfied, and indeed, they should have a chance.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:36:17 <reynaldo>	the first one was a question ^ ?
Sep 12 17:36:44 <BBB>	reynaldo: no, nothing was decided yet
Sep 12 17:36:51 <reynaldo>	BBB ok, thanks
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:37:30 <nevcairiel>	you mean a judge
Sep 12 17:37:42 <atomnuker>	yes, or a voting process like reynaldo said
Sep 12 17:38:05 <reynaldo>	I'd have both
Sep 12 17:38:07 <nevcairiel>	or mediator or arbitrator if those are better words
Sep 12 17:38:20 <Cigaes>	atomnuker: who steps in when developers call upon him/her.
Sep 12 17:38:25 <llogan2>	media-tor
Sep 12 17:38:28 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: the voters
Sep 12 17:38:37 <atomnuker>	but the key point is not to intervene too early or too late
Sep 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
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:39:32 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: Im thinking beyond patch disagreements
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:39:48 <reynaldo>	Im thinking on the same structure handling every disagreement
Sep 12 17:39:52 <saste>	that what happens when you have a single one developer
Sep 12 17:39:59 <Cigaes>	Of course, for important questions, the decision must be from all developers, not just leader/committee.
Sep 12 17:40:03 <saste>	but then the more you have to decide, the slower the process is
Sep 12 17:40:07 <BBB>	I am happy with saste’s 3-developer committee thing
Sep 12 17:40:07 <Cigaes>	If only: nominating the leader/committee.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:40:50 <reynaldo>	saste, BBB that's 3 devs & no single leader ?
Sep 12 17:40:52 <Cigaes>	We can vote on the number of members in the leading committee the first time we vote.
Sep 12 17:40:57 <llogan2>	saste: sounds good to me
Sep 12 17:41:15 <BBB>	reynaldo: yeah. although leader seemed to work fine also
Sep 12 17:41:52 <llogan2>	Benevolent Triumvorate for Life
Sep 12 17:42:19 <saste>	BBB: and they need to be able to judge about the technical merits of the decisions to take
Sep 12 17:42:20 <iive>	yes, fixed structure tend to accumulate power with time.
Sep 12 17:42:34 <saste>	then we would need a rotation mechanism
Sep 12 17:42:49 <BBB>	right, that’s why I mentioned rotation mechanism
Sep 12 17:42:58 <ubitux>	what if the leader & 1 person agree against 10 persons?
Sep 12 17:43:13 <nevcairiel>	then you didnt pick a good leader
Sep 12 17:43:14 <iive>	there is another solution. If there is dead-lock, we can pick the solution randomly
Sep 12 17:43:16 <ubitux>	10 persons being more or less active developers
Sep 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?
Sep 12 17:43:28 <Cigaes>	ubitux: then why did they chose that leader?
Sep 12 17:43:29 <atomnuker>	ubitux: down with the leader
Sep 12 17:43:40 <reynaldo>	this is why I think we should have 1 leader + small commitee ^
Sep 12 17:43:52 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: if leaders are unsure, they can ask for counsel.
Sep 12 17:43:53 <saste>	i'm not even sure about the leader
Sep 12 17:43:54 <reynaldo>	so leader & commitee can oversee each other and step in if needed
Sep 12 17:44:00 <saste>	probably a committe is better
Sep 12 17:44:09 <saste>	so we avoid conflict between leader and committe
Sep 12 17:44:13 <llogan2>	i odn't think anyone wants to be "the leader"
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:44:49 <jamrial>	ubitux: have a voting first, if those 10 people are the majority, leader/committee doesn't intervene?
Sep 12 17:45:10 <ubitux>	ok ok
Sep 12 17:45:23 <iive>	Is there another solution that doesn't involve Politics?
Sep 12 17:45:35 <llogan2>	armwrestling
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:45:45 <reynaldo>	this is rather important guys ^^
Sep 12 17:45:53 <iive>	llogan2: I was thinking of lottery, but that's find too :)
Sep 12 17:45:55 <reynaldo>	and something that needs to be considered
Sep 12 17:46:09 <atomnuker>	iive: what we currently do: call a meeting once conflicts happen
Sep 12 17:46:30 <saste>	atomnuker, the truth is that the meeting doesn't resolve things, most of the time
Sep 12 17:46:43 <saste>	unless you give voting power to the attendees
Sep 12 17:46:52 <saste>	in that case you need to define who are the attendees
Sep 12 17:47:00 <saste>	this applies in case there are controversies
Sep 12 17:47:15 <saste>	note that in most cases decisions are resolved with no conflict
Sep 12 17:47:16 <atomnuker>	saste: they should mostly resolve themselves given time
Sep 12 17:47:26 <saste>	that's more than 99% of the issues
Sep 12 17:47:45 <saste>	the decision process is about that 1% of issues which can't be settled with the "normal" means
Sep 12 17:47:58 <Cigaes>	saste: hear, hear. Let us focus on that please.
Sep 12 17:48:03 <BBB>	++
Sep 12 17:48:58 <saste>	can we settle reasonable criteria for selecting voters?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:49:29 <reynaldo>	plain criteria, easy to follow
Sep 12 17:49:35 <llogan2>	why inactivity?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:50:11 <reynaldo>	llogan2: thats my take, lets hear others and then discuss on their details
Sep 12 17:50:17 <BBB>	llogan2: my term “mplungarians” is only partially derogatory
Sep 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.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:50:31 <reynaldo>	guys, can you propose your formulas and then we can discuss
Sep 12 17:50:34 <reynaldo>	lets focuss please
Sep 12 17:50:45 <reynaldo>	otherwise this will just drag on and on
Sep 12 17:50:58 <BBB>	I support reynaldo’s notation
Sep 12 17:51:36 <reynaldo>	thanks. do we have any other alternative? guys? anything else to suggest ?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:51:50 <reynaldo>	if not, we can discuss on the details on my proposal and settle on something
Sep 12 17:52:02 <BBB>	but yeah we can discuss details on ML
Sep 12 17:52:05 <Cigaes>	BBB: discussing who loses voting rights can wait.
Sep 12 17:52:08 <BBB>	and then let’s move on to #3
Sep 12 17:52:16 <saste>	allright
Sep 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"
Sep 12 17:52:19 <reynaldo>	no, Id rather do it here than to the mailing list
Sep 12 17:52:31 <reynaldo>	this is the single most important desicion we should make
Sep 12 17:52:37 <BBB>	ok
Sep 12 17:52:57 <saste>	llogan2, sounds good
Sep 12 17:53:20 <nevcairiel>	llogan2: define active
Sep 12 17:53:32 <reynaldo>	so, inactivity: 2 years / number of commits to reach voting rights: 50 in one year
Sep 12 17:53:41 <reynaldo>	sounds like something you'd be able to agree on ^ ?
Sep 12 17:53:54 <BBB>	ok
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:54:14 <Cigaes>	I think we can not decide on a criterion without having a few stats.
Sep 12 17:54:19 <reynaldo>	sorry, mean to say "50" not, "50" in one year
Sep 12 17:54:31 <ubitux>	anyone to share a git command to raise those names?
Sep 12 17:54:53 <ubitux>	(so we can evaluate how much people are involved and the concerned ppl know about that)
Sep 12 17:55:05 <reynaldo>	my bet its it will come out to ~20ppl or maybe less
Sep 12 17:55:08 <reynaldo>	a maneagable set
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:55:21 <nevcairiel>	ubitux: git shortlog -s -n
Sep 12 17:55:36 <reynaldo>	llogan2: not every single time, sometimes life just takes over but you remain lurkin around
Sep 12 17:55:41 <reynaldo>	just not actively contributing
Sep 12 17:56:10 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: now we need the 2-year parameters
Sep 12 17:56:18 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: do we invite libav ppl to vote too? :)
Sep 12 17:56:22 <reynaldo>	happens when ppl change jobs, have kids, get sick, you name it
Sep 12 17:56:22 <jamrial>	ubitux: git shortlog -ns --no-merges n2.5..n2.8 maybe
Sep 12 17:56:31 <reynaldo>	libav has nothing to do with this unless they are "dual"
Sep 12 17:56:48 <ubitux>	jamrial: release scoped then, not time scoped?
Sep 12 17:56:48 <llogan2>	reynaldo: but that means they are now too bust to deal with FFdecisions
Sep 12 17:56:48 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: in that case, maybe it is normal they do not vote.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:56:53 <llogan2>	*busy
Sep 12 17:57:01 <jamrial>	use commits instead of tags then
Sep 12 17:57:08 <nevcairiel>	ubitux: find a rev in time thats 2 years ago then, dont think it gets any easier
Sep 12 17:57:21 <Cigaes>	OTHO, someone reviewing patches on the ML without producing them should have vote right too.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:57:39 <ubitux>	(nevcairiel: pretty sure git has a time parser for that kind of stuff)
Sep 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 ?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:58:44 <reynaldo>	we need to discuss "reentry" how can you get back to voting after a period of inactivty
Sep 12 17:58:56 <BBB>	reynaldo: same as initial entry?
Sep 12 17:59:00 <saste>	anybody against the reynaldo commit criteria about what an active developer is?
Sep 12 17:59:05 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: yeah, they can decide that and pretty much anything for that matter
Sep 12 17:59:09 <BBB>	saste: sgtm
Sep 12 17:59:11 <reynaldo>	BBB: good
Sep 12 17:59:14 <saste>	are we also going to count merged commits?
Sep 12 17:59:15 <reynaldo>	maybe half that ?
Sep 12 17:59:19 <reynaldo>	BBB ^
Sep 12 17:59:37 <Cigaes>	saste: if we consider reuniting with libav, then libav guys must have voting right.
Sep 12 17:59:44 <iive>	well, whoever wants to vote, could do 50 K&R formatting commits and be done :D
Sep 12 17:59:50 <saste>	Cigaes, I'm fine with that
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:00:10 <durandal_1707>	Lol
Sep 12 18:00:11 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: reuninting with libav is not something that has to be decided now
Sep 12 18:00:22 <reynaldo>	thats why we have voters
Sep 12 18:00:29 *	lglinskih (~lglinskih at verda.kir.elagin.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:01:19 <saste>	llogan2, indeed
Sep 12 18:01:25 <reynaldo>	lets settle on a 1y inactivity ?
Sep 12 18:01:30 <reynaldo>	saste: ^
Sep 12 18:01:33 <llogan2>	"hey, babtiste, you're a voter"
Sep 12 18:01:48 <reynaldo>	like, a kid, a sickness, etc
Sep 12 18:02:00 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: git shortlog -ns --since '{2 years ago}'
Sep 12 18:02:19 <jamrial>	nice
Sep 12 18:02:26 <llogan2>	reynaldo: perhaps i do not understand your critera.
Sep 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)
Sep 12 18:02:53 <ubitux>	should we target a number of commits or just the most actives ?
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:03:14 <jamrial>	saste: we have developers that don't have nearly as much as that but are active in the ml
Sep 12 18:03:26 <ubitux>	like, git shortlog -ns --since '{2 years ago}' | head -n20 maybe
Sep 12 18:03:40 <ubitux>	this looks like a good list to me ^
Sep 12 18:03:48 <saste>	jamrial, I think we can agree that any criteria will be flawed in some way
Sep 12 18:03:53 <ubitux>	or maybe 25
Sep 12 18:04:00 <reynaldo>	jamrial: activity on the mailing list, incredible as it sounds, has been a problem some times :)
Sep 12 18:04:04 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: do you insist to have the same criterion for the initial list and later proceedings?
Sep 12 18:04:09 <reynaldo>	I think we can let the voters decide on such issues
Sep 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". 
Sep 12 18:04:17 <saste>	we just need an objective metrics, then the new voters can fine tune the system
Sep 12 18:04:21 <ubitux>	30 looks fine too, it reaches the 50 commits one
Sep 12 18:04:25 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: I'd let the rules to be stabilized by the voters
Sep 12 18:04:29 <reynaldo>	so lets make them initial
Sep 12 18:04:30 <jamrial>	saste: true, which is why we should think how to include said people
Sep 12 18:04:34 <reynaldo>	and see where it leads us
Sep 12 18:04:36 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: then let us only discuss the initial criterion.
Sep 12 18:04:52 <ubitux>	saste: git shortlog -ns --since '{2 years ago}' | head -n30 sounds like a fine list to me currently
Sep 12 18:04:56 <reynaldo>	yes, I had the impression that's what we were dealing with
Sep 12 18:05:35 <jamrial>	example, rcombs has been very active this year, but he has 48 commits
Sep 12 18:05:36 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: you wrote about "loose your right" and "regain it"
Sep 12 18:05:48 <Cigaes>	That is not relevant for the immediate vote.
Sep 12 18:06:02 <reynaldo>	oh, point there
Sep 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 ?
Sep 12 18:06:11 <jamrial>	(why am i sixth on that list, wth)
Sep 12 18:06:16 <reynaldo>	well, consider those guideline suggestions :)
Sep 12 18:06:25 <ubitux>	jamrial: redundant merges probably
Sep 12 18:06:47 <ubitux>	i shouldn't be counted though
Sep 12 18:06:57 <nevcairiel>	pretty hard to filter out the dupes
Sep 12 18:07:07 <nevcairiel>	unless you directly subtract the same list from libav
Sep 12 18:07:09 <BBB>	I have a secret way
Sep 12 18:07:14 <BBB>	right
Sep 12 18:07:14 <reynaldo>	iive: top commiters can change by the minute, you need something more stable
Sep 12 18:07:17 <ubitux>	i actually don't see dups
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:07:52 <iive>	reynaldo: not with 15 people.
Sep 12 18:08:01 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: "top committers at $date".
Sep 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?
Sep 12 18:08:36 <reynaldo>	we are humas after all
Sep 12 18:08:42 <reynaldo>	one will make more sense, Im sure
Sep 12 18:08:43 <reynaldo>	;)
Sep 12 18:08:51 <iive>	1. giving and taking voting rights gives bad vibe...
Sep 12 18:08:52 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: for a punctual choice, they are equivalent.
Sep 12 18:09:02 <reynaldo>	I understand at least BBB and saste already back that formula up ^
Sep 12 18:09:08 <iive>	2. having a lot of people arguing is bad.
Sep 12 18:10:06 <iive>	I think that Prakinson gives 12 as maximum of the people who can work productively in a group.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:10:34 <ubitux>	iive: most people won't vote
Sep 12 18:10:52 <BBB>	jamrial: you mean as a later extension to the formula?
Sep 12 18:10:53 <ubitux>	when there is an issue like pkg-config, at most 10 ppl will get involved
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:10:57 <iive>	most people don't want to get involved in politics
Sep 12 18:10:57 <ubitux>	most of the others don't care
Sep 12 18:11:00 <jamrial>	rcombs and kierank would be left out as is, and i consider them active
Sep 12 18:11:01 <reynaldo>	long term planing and what not
Sep 12 18:11:16 <BBB>	jamrial: llogan would be out also (he’s 40, not 50)
Sep 12 18:11:21 <ubitux>	jamrial: what if we reduce to 1 year?
Sep 12 18:11:34 <durandal_1707>	let just vote for pkgconfig thing
Sep 12 18:11:38 <jamrial>	and so would saste
Sep 12 18:12:05 <reynaldo>	the voters commitee can garnt voting rights to ppl not initially selected, thats their prerogative
Sep 12 18:12:05 <Cigaes>	Me too.
Sep 12 18:12:12 <jamrial>	ubitux: i'm checking one year right now. rcomns, kierank, llogan and saste don't have 50 commits
Sep 12 18:12:17 <saste>	jamrial, personally, I don't care as long as we have a bootstrap criteria
Sep 12 18:12:20 <iive>	yes, commit number is bad measure too. because one might have 100 1liners and another can have 2x 1000lines
Sep 12 18:12:35 <llogan2>	this is hard.
Sep 12 18:12:36 <Cigaes>	saste: idem for me.
Sep 12 18:12:41 <saste>	also, I can send some typo-fixing patches if that matters ;-)
Sep 12 18:12:50 <reynaldo>	ok. I have a proposal
Sep 12 18:13:04 <reynaldo>	the one I descrived + include some ppl that should be left out in the initial
Sep 12 18:13:08 <reynaldo>	list
Sep 12 18:13:12 <reynaldo>	talking about saste, llogan, etc
Sep 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
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:14:03 <ubitux>	(sorry long run sentence)
Sep 12 18:14:53 <saste>	llogan2, in your case we should probably count also ffmpeg-web committs
Sep 12 18:15:01 <BBB>	so reynaldo’s proposal and have these people include additionals by majority vote?
Sep 12 18:15:05 <BBB>	saste: indeed
Sep 12 18:15:14 <reynaldo>	BBB: yes, I like that
Sep 12 18:15:20 <saste>	anyway, I'm really fine with any objective criterion, then it can be fine-tuned later
Sep 12 18:15:26 <reynaldo>	great
Sep 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 http://pastebin.com/kCQc55jb)
Sep 12 18:15:46 <reynaldo>	do we need to vote this or can we call it settled and move on?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 18:16:16 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: so 20 first without libav looks sane?
Sep 12 18:16:28 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: thanks
Sep 12 18:16:42 <BBB>	so can we take that as decision then?
Sep 12 18:16:46 <reynaldo>	looks sane to me, missing some indeed but that can be sort out latter
Sep 12 18:16:46 <nevcairiel>	ubitux: sure, even includes saste again =p
Sep 12 18:16:47 <BBB>	who objects?
Sep 12 18:16:48 <saste>	what if we include libav
Sep 12 18:16:59 <reynaldo>	what list is that one btw?
Sep 12 18:17:17 <saste>	I don't want to make arbitrary distinctions, a committ is a committ
Sep 12 18:17:20 <reynaldo>	the one comming from my proposal ?
Sep 12 18:17:22 <Cigaes>	saste: if we merge, we have to redo the whole decision process with them anyway.
Sep 12 18:17:25 <reynaldo>	saste: +1
Sep 12 18:17:32 <saste>	then if they don't care they won't vote
Sep 12 18:17:37 <Cigaes>	But it will help to have a united proposition.
Sep 12 18:17:46 <nevcairiel>	saste: people contributing to libav dont seem to have an interest in voting on ffmpeg decisions
Sep 12 18:18:01 <nevcairiel>	I would prefer getting people actually itnerested in ffmpeg
Sep 12 18:18:21 <nevcairiel>	the only people dropping out due to that are the main libav contributors anyway
Sep 12 18:18:44 <ubitux>	so 4-5 more people to add?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 18:19:04 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: stop your sentence before "and".
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:19:31 <ubitux>	Cigaes: we really need a time window
Sep 12 18:19:43 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: trying to cut the list a bit shorter, otherwise first council* coordination will be a pain
Sep 12 18:19:57 <reynaldo>	ubitux: +1
Sep 12 18:20:08 <Cigaes>	reynaldo / ubitux: we do not need a criterion to LOSE voting rights for the initial list.
Sep 12 18:20:30 <reynaldo>	we need, otheriwse it will be a huge and not really representative list
Sep 12 18:20:38 <ubitux>	yeah it's not about loosing but accounting in a given time window (--since '{X months ago}' or whatever)
Sep 12 18:20:49 <reynaldo>	ubitux: +1
Sep 12 18:20:55 <reynaldo>	a year is something I feel ok with
Sep 12 18:21:09 <reynaldo>	and matches our idea of regain* window latter on, not that it matters that much, just saying
Sep 12 18:21:14 <reynaldo>	seems to make sense
Sep 12 18:21:15 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: then your sentence was not correctly stated.
Sep 12 18:21:21 <Cigaes>	Let me try to rephrase:
Sep 12 18:21:29 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: might be, I suck at english too early on saturdays
Sep 12 18:21:31 <reynaldo>	:)
Sep 12 18:21:33 <iive>	Cigaes: you want it as "50 commits for 1 year granting you voting right"
Sep 12 18:22:06 <Cigaes>	iive: that was what I was going to write.
Sep 12 18:22:37 <reynaldo>	year being 2015 for the first list ot the last 365 days counting back from today ?
Sep 12 18:22:43 <reynaldo>	ot/or ?
Sep 12 18:22:49 <Cigaes>	But maybe "50 commits in total including X% in the last year" could be slightly better.
Sep 12 18:23:07 <reynaldo>	please dont go beyond rephrasing, we already agreed on a formula
Sep 12 18:23:27 <ubitux>	i propose to use a git command as formula 
Sep 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).
Sep 12 18:23:35 <iive>	365(+1) days on the day voting is called.
Sep 12 18:23:50 <Cigaes>	iive: dangerous.
Sep 12 18:24:00 <iive>	politics is dangerous
Sep 12 18:24:01 <Cigaes>	iive: once the criterium is stated, it can be gamed.
Sep 12 18:24:14 <iive>	that's why I'm serious about the lottery.
Sep 12 18:24:47 <saste>	Cigaes, a bad criterion => still better than random choice
Sep 12 18:25:03 <Cigaes>	saste: of course.
Sep 12 18:25:11 <BBB>	so do we agree on this now?
Sep 12 18:25:17 <BBB>	I’d like to move to #3 at some point :)
Sep 12 18:25:21 <Cigaes>	saste: but if only past commits are taken into account, it can not be gamed.
Sep 12 18:25:21 <BBB>	(my family wants lunch)
Sep 12 18:25:30 *	cehoyos (~cehoyos at 80-110-108-0.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 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.
Sep 12 18:25:43 <cehoyos>	Hi!
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:26:27 <reynaldo>	please move on ok ?
Sep 12 18:26:52 <saste>	reynaldo, ok
Sep 12 18:26:52 <cehoyos>	Sorrry for the late question:
Sep 12 18:27:05 <cehoyos>	What about merge commits (Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings)?
Sep 12 18:27:10 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: "during the 365 days before the beginning of the meeting"?
Sep 12 18:27:21 <BBB>	cehoyos: no merge commits, but merged commits are fine
Sep 12 18:27:28 <cehoyos>	Ty
Sep 12 18:27:30 <nevcairiel>	BBB: merging is hard work :(
Sep 12 18:27:31 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: yes, yesterday was day 1
Sep 12 18:27:41 <BBB>	nevcairiel: that’s true …
Sep 12 18:27:47 <Cigaes>	cehoyos: only Hendrik and Michael have a lot of those, so it does not matter.
Sep 12 18:27:55 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: UTC/GMT as reference TZ
Sep 12 18:28:00 <BBB>	 219  Hendrik Leppkes
Sep 12 18:28:01 <reynaldo>	Im guessing thats well defined enough
Sep 12 18:28:03 <BBB>	nevcairiel: you’re safe :)
Sep 12 18:28:29 <saste>	who can post the list somewhere, showing the git command?
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:28:33 <Cigaes>	And now we see Clement trying to get back in the list of voters :-Þ
Sep 12 18:28:45 <reynaldo>	ok, saste, can you take care about publishing the list on the webpage ?
Sep 12 18:28:46 <cehoyos>	Cigaes: As said, I only asked for clarification
Sep 12 18:29:01 <BBB>	 438  Clément Bœsch ?
Sep 12 18:29:09 <nevcairiel>	its a joke BBB :P
Sep 12 18:29:10 <BBB>	maybe my list is b0rk3d
Sep 12 18:29:16 <ubitux>	(Cigaes: you got me, exactly what i just said on #ffmpeg-devel :D)
Sep 12 18:29:19 <reynaldo>	saste: can you ?
Sep 12 18:29:30 <saste>	reynaldo, not today for sure
Sep 12 18:29:35 <reynaldo>	maybe tomorrow ?
Sep 12 18:29:44 <saste>	also, do you have a git command?
Sep 12 18:29:49 <reynaldo>	remeber the choosen timeframe please, just that
Sep 12 18:29:50 <cehoyos>	nevcairiel: That sounds like very important point that needs to be made 100% clear.
Sep 12 18:29:58 <saste>	i'm not yet sure about the merged and merge committs
Sep 12 18:30:09 <saste>	cehoyos, indeed
Sep 12 18:30:15 <nevcairiel>	some things get merged from branches specifically meant for ffmpeg
Sep 12 18:30:20 <nevcairiel>	those shuld be counted for sure
Sep 12 18:30:20 <reynaldo>	saste: I have not but I think ubitux had come up with one already
Sep 12 18:30:29 <Cigaes>	git shortlog -s -n --since=2014-09-12T15:00:00Z --until 2015-09-12T15:00:00Z
Sep 12 18:30:29 <nevcairiel>	but I would exclude libav merges at this time
Sep 12 18:30:38 <reynaldo>	otherwise we can sort it out
Sep 12 18:30:38 <BBB>	how?
Sep 12 18:30:43 <saste>	ok, that list also include merged and merge committs?
Sep 12 18:30:48 <nevcairiel>	saste: yes
Sep 12 18:30:57 <saste>	so I'm fine with that
Sep 12 18:31:00 <reynaldo>	I would exclude libav merges too
Sep 12 18:31:01 <Cigaes>	saste: my command count them.
Sep 12 18:31:05 <reynaldo>	i think we all kinda agree on that
Sep 12 18:31:14 <nevcairiel>	its not trivial to exclude them in one command however
Sep 12 18:31:35 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: would you be willing to work on the command
Sep 12 18:31:37 <BBB>	I just subtract the libav stats from the ffmpeg stats :)
Sep 12 18:31:39 <reynaldo>	we can review it latter on
Sep 12 18:31:44 <BBB>	ok, let’s move on?
Sep 12 18:31:46 <reynaldo>	just to make sure its doing the right thing
Sep 12 18:31:47 <nevcairiel>	you would have to run the same command on their repo and subtract the stats, yes
Sep 12 18:31:48 <reynaldo>	yes
Sep 12 18:31:50 <reynaldo>	lets move on
Sep 12 18:32:04 <ubitux>	(note: it can be a script in tools/ directory to raise the names)
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:32:21 <Cigaes>	saste: +1
Sep 12 18:32:22 <reynaldo>	ubitux: sounds like a plan
Sep 12 18:32:32 <Cigaes>	Excluding them is sending the wrong message.
Sep 12 18:33:01 <Cigaes>	We are talking about Vittorio, Anton and Luca, and that is all unless I am mistaken.
Sep 12 18:33:02 <cehoyos>	Cigaes: What message is not including them and what message would be including them?
Sep 12 18:33:08 <cehoyos>	Martin
Sep 12 18:33:15 <nevcairiel>	diego probably too still
Sep 12 18:33:19 <cehoyos>	No
Sep 12 18:33:23 <nevcairiel>	although he vanished
Sep 12 18:33:48 <Cigaes>	Their contribution is technically good, their advice matter. And they probably would not want to vote anyway.
Sep 12 18:33:56 <Cigaes>	Diego is at 43.
Sep 12 18:34:14 <reynaldo>	please stop thinking on libav right now
Sep 12 18:34:17 <BBB>	I’m going to grab lunch, I support whatever you guys decide from this point onwards :)
Sep 12 18:34:19 <reynaldo>	it only complicates things
Sep 12 18:34:31 <reynaldo>	BBB just a minute please
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:34:42 <ubitux>	yeah let's move on, it's details
Sep 12 18:34:44 <cehoyos>	reynaldo: sorry, but either a decision is made or no decision is made
Sep 12 18:34:50 <Cigaes>	saste: strong +1
Sep 12 18:34:53 <ubitux>	there are more important things to worry about wrt libav
Sep 12 18:34:58 <reynaldo>	Im not sure everyone is considering reuniting tbh
Sep 12 18:35:04 <reynaldo>	Id leave that to the voting comitee
Sep 12 18:35:05 <Cigaes>	The voting process must be chosen too.
Sep 12 18:35:19 <llogan2>	saste: fine with me
Sep 12 18:35:41 <reynaldo>	ok. So, can we settle on the initial criteria please ?
Sep 12 18:35:51 <saste>	can we count about who wants to consider merged commits and not?
Sep 12 18:36:01 <reynaldo>	I understand the only thing pending is whether to count commits originating in libav
Sep 12 18:36:04 <reynaldo>	?
Sep 12 18:36:07 <saste>	reynaldo, yes
Sep 12 18:36:39 <saste>	so we have in favour: cigaes, saste, llogan2
Sep 12 18:36:43 <Cigaes>	Can we postpone that to after we decide if we want to try and reunite?
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:37:00 <reynaldo>	counted/
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:37:10 <saste>	A
Sep 12 18:37:13 <reynaldo>	-------------------------------
Sep 12 18:37:14 <reynaldo>	B
Sep 12 18:37:15 <Cigaes>	Because basically, I would say: if we want to reunite, then we MUST include libav developers.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:38:06 <reynaldo>	thats a HUGE conditional for an initial voting group with unlimited powers
Sep 12 18:38:23 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: do you believe they will abuse it?
Sep 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)
Sep 12 18:38:36 <reynaldo>	I think its not worst the risk, even if nil
Sep 12 18:38:38 *	rcombs (rcombs at irc.rcombs.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 18:38:42 <reynaldo>	worth/
Sep 12 18:38:43 <Cigaes>	We can not trust the initial voters and distrust them at the same time.
Sep 12 18:38:43 <saste>	saste, so please let's vote on it, since we can't apparently settle
Sep 12 18:39:00 <reynaldo>	ok, we are B=2 A=1 cn you guys keep voting please
Sep 12 18:39:04 <Cigaes>	A
Sep 12 18:39:04 <nevcairiel>	B
Sep 12 18:39:17 <reynaldo>	B=4 A=1
Sep 12 18:39:17 <iive>	 
Sep 12 18:39:26 <nevcairiel>	reynaldo can't count :)
Sep 12 18:39:27 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: Ahem...
Sep 12 18:39:34 <reynaldo>	oh, 3,2 sorry
Sep 12 18:39:34 <ubitux>	haha
Sep 12 18:39:36 <reynaldo>	:)
Sep 12 18:39:40 <Loriker>	A
Sep 12 18:39:54 <durandal_1707>	B
Sep 12 18:40:11 <reynaldo>	4,3
Sep 12 18:40:34 <saste>	still two minutes then we go on, please vote if you didn't and care about it
Sep 12 18:41:17 <ubitux>	is llogan2 vote accounted?
Sep 12 18:41:34 <atomnuker>	A
Sep 12 18:41:53 <saste>	still one minute
Sep 12 18:42:59 <cehoyos>	B
Sep 12 18:43:15 <reynaldo>	ok, 2 minutes expired
Sep 12 18:43:18 <reynaldo>	initial group decided
Sep 12 18:43:19 <saste>	any more votes?
Sep 12 18:43:27 <reynaldo>	the window expired already
Sep 12 18:43:30 <saste>	allright
Sep 12 18:43:52 <reynaldo>	formula as descrived previously, not counting commits originating in libav
Sep 12 18:44:08 <saste>	A=4 B=5
Sep 12 18:44:09 <reynaldo>	I think we can leave everything else to the voting commitee once its published by monday
Sep 12 18:44:17 <saste>	so let's move on
Sep 12 18:44:20 <saste>	VDD 2015
Sep 12 18:44:22 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: no, the voting process must be decided.
Sep 12 18:44:36 <reynaldo>	I trust the voting comitee can do that
Sep 12 18:44:43 <saste>	some of us will be there
Sep 12 18:45:03 <Cigaes>	I propose: public ballots, on the mailing-list, 1 week deadline, and same kind of ballot than Debian.
Sep 12 18:45:19 <atomnuker>	Cigaes: yep, sounds good
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:45:39 <saste>	I think we will have some real-life meeting where to discuss things 
Sep 12 18:45:50 <saste>	Cigaes, cehoyos, will you be at VDD?
Sep 12 18:45:53 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: we do not need it, but it is simpler, no need for infrastructure, authentication, etc.
Sep 12 18:45:59 <reynaldo>	saste: when is vdd taking place ? next month?
Sep 12 18:46:01 <Cigaes>	saste: I will be there.
Sep 12 18:46:08 <Cigaes>	Next week.
Sep 12 18:46:09 <saste>	reynaldo, next weekend, in paris
Sep 12 18:46:53 <cehoyos>	saste: Yes
Sep 12 18:46:55 <reynaldo>	I wont, would have loved to but just moved :/
Sep 12 18:47:04 <reynaldo>	need to be here for my family
Sep 12 18:47:11 <saste>	cehoyos, good
Sep 12 18:47:18 <cehoyos>	You sure?
Sep 12 18:47:44 <saste>	BBB, yayoi, ubitux, nevcairiel should be there as well
Sep 12 18:47:51 <saste>	maybe llogan2?
Sep 12 18:47:51 <nevcairiel>	I am not
Sep 12 18:47:58 <saste>	nevcairiel, too bad
Sep 12 18:48:17 <yayoi>	i am really broke..i would love to meet your guys though.. 
Sep 12 18:48:24 <saste>	anyway, if there is nothing to discuss here then we can move to the next point
Sep 12 18:48:35 <reynaldo>	yayoi: where are you based?
Sep 12 18:48:41 <yayoi>	san francisco...
Sep 12 18:48:42 *	Sulik (4cfe4741 at gateway/web/freenode/ip.76.254.71.65) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 18:48:44 <saste>	yayoi, I believed you was going to attend, i was confused
Sep 12 18:48:57 <reynaldo>	yayoi: im in san jose, you can sure meet me ;)
Sep 12 18:49:04 <yayoi>	let's do that :)
Sep 12 18:49:10 <reynaldo>	sure
Sep 12 18:49:17 <llogan2>	saste: unfortunately, i won't be there.
Sep 12 18:49:21 <saste>	yayoi, Videolan foundation is going to refund travel and pay for hosting
Sep 12 18:49:31 <saste>	the only thing is that you need to register in time
Sep 12 18:49:37 <reynaldo>	yeah, thats an option ^
Sep 12 18:49:46 <yayoi>	well i asked VVD to fund me at registration.. for my air..but no answer.. so..
Sep 12 18:49:53 <yayoi>	sorry VDD
Sep 12 18:50:02 <saste>	yayoi, mmh OK :-(
Sep 12 18:50:04 <yayoi>	oh i see
Sep 12 18:50:10 *	am_ (ca4fcb63 at gateway/web/freenode/ip.202.79.203.99) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 18:50:11 <saste>	ok, let's move on to the next topic
Sep 12 18:50:12 <yayoi>	it must be too late then
Sep 12 18:50:49 <Cigaes>	saste: if "next" is "4 outreachy", could we expedite 5 first?
Sep 12 18:51:02 <saste>	Cigaes, allright, anyone against it?
Sep 12 18:51:08 <nevcairiel>	I assume we delegate #1 to the commitee now?
Sep 12 18:51:21 <saste>	nevcariel: yes
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:51:29 <saste>	next topic: use of Github/Gitorious for pull requests
Sep 12 18:51:37 <reynaldo>	not really an issue, just thought about pointing it out ^
Sep 12 18:51:56 <saste>	well, gitorious is dead, so this is only about github
Sep 12 18:52:11 <reynaldo>	saste: I'd say no but isnt this something that should be handled by the voters comitee ?
Sep 12 18:52:15 <saste>	I think this could be decided by the voting committee as well
Sep 12 18:52:17 <saste>	reynaldo, indeed
Sep 12 18:52:19 <reynaldo>	yes
Sep 12 18:52:32 <Cigaes>	For myself, I would very much prefer that all patches arrive on the mailing list as such.
Sep 12 18:52:38 <saste>	i'm also against github pull requests, if they are not backed by mailing-list patches
Sep 12 18:52:54 <saste>	anyone in favour of github pull requests?
Sep 12 18:53:10 <cehoyos>	Sorry, but afaict nobody from inside FFmpeg supports github pull requests, so there will be no voting necessary.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:53:22 <ubitux>	i like the ml exclusivity as well, in particular for archival purposes
Sep 12 18:53:23 <atomnuker>	I agree about mailing list only patches
Sep 12 18:53:27 <reynaldo>	+1
Sep 12 18:53:34 <saste>	well, at least here we seem to agree
Sep 12 18:53:37 *	Sulik has quit (Quit: Page closed)
Sep 12 18:54:00 <saste>	if we have no more comments we can proceed to the next point
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:54:10 <jamrial>	someone mentioned adding a line to readme.md (which is shown on github) to let people know we don't accept pull requests
Sep 12 18:54:24 <reynaldo>	cehoyos: I wouldnt forgive that, no
Sep 12 18:54:34 <reynaldo>	just say that it sends the wrong message
Sep 12 18:54:37 <cehoyos>	Well, that is the only question...
Sep 12 18:54:45 <reynaldo>	but maybe a change is just too good to let it slip, who knows
Sep 12 18:55:03 <reynaldo>	jamrial: yes, that'd be a good idea
Sep 12 18:55:05 <reynaldo>	wana do it?
Sep 12 18:55:08 <cehoyos>	Sorry, I thought you were joking: Yes, this does happen
Sep 12 18:55:08 <llogan2>	i wish there was a way to disable it in github, but i don't think there is
Sep 12 18:55:23 <saste>	maintainers are free to handle their pull requests as they will, I think
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:55:33 <reynaldo>	saste: +1
Sep 12 18:55:43 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: if a merge request is too good to let it pass, send it to the mailing-list.
Sep 12 18:55:44 <saste>	but we shouldn't advertise that method, since it doesn't work for most changes
Sep 12 18:55:46 <ubitux>	saste: depends if we allow merge commits outside the libav scope
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:56:02 <Cigaes>	jamrial: git send-email or git format-patch correctly attached.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:56:09 <jamrial>	yeah
Sep 12 18:56:25 <ubitux>	i really don't like the idea of loosing discussion about a patchset
Sep 12 18:56:33 <ubitux>	even if the maintainer didn't care about it at that time
Sep 12 18:56:35 <iive>	+1 git format-patch
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:56:58 <llogan2>	nevcairiel: what client?
Sep 12 18:57:06 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: I do not understand, format-patch is just the same thing as send-email done manually.
Sep 12 18:57:18 <jamrial>	nevcairiel: afaik most clients let you "quote" the text you select
Sep 12 18:57:42 <reynaldo>	yeah, thats a MUA issue, not a development issue
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:57:50 <reynaldo>	lets not deviate though
Sep 12 18:58:13 <reynaldo>	do you guys have anything to discuss right now that the voting comitee should not be handling?
Sep 12 18:58:22 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: this can be fixed on client side, let us discuss it later.
Sep 12 18:58:31 <saste>	next point?
Sep 12 18:58:44 <reynaldo>	a brief on publishing the list of voters
Sep 12 18:58:49 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: let us not vote when we can agree.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:59:14 <reynaldo>	was this what we agreed on ?
Sep 12 18:59:17 <reynaldo>	just confirming
Sep 12 18:59:46 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: ??? what am I supposed to do?
Sep 12 19:00:06 <saste>	reynaldo, i will publish the list to ffmpeg-devel
Sep 12 19:00:13 <reynaldo>	maybe Im wrong, give me just one sec to take a look at my backlog
Sep 12 19:00:16 <reynaldo>	saste: wprks
Sep 12 19:00:19 <reynaldo>	works/
Sep 12 19:00:37 <saste>	allright, should we move to the next point?
Sep 12 19:00:45 <saste>	which is: Outreachy funding for the next round (winter 2015)
Sep 12 19:00:45 <llogan2>	sure
Sep 12 19:00:54 <reynaldo>	just need to figure out who is providing the script saste
Sep 12 19:01:00 <reynaldo>	so you can have a list by monday
Sep 12 19:01:04 <reynaldo>	anyone volunteers ?
Sep 12 19:01:11 <reynaldo>	ubitux ^ ?
Sep 12 19:01:23 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: someone who voted B :-Þ
Sep 12 19:01:28 <ubitux>	not really :(
Sep 12 19:01:42 <reynaldo>	ok. I will
Sep 12 19:01:48 <llogan2>	yayoi 'n lglinskih: ping. we are now attempting to talk about Outreachy funding.
Sep 12 19:01:59 <yayoi>	yes
Sep 12 19:02:05 <yayoi>	i have a lot of questions actually
Sep 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.
Sep 12 19:02:34 <yayoi>	yeah outreachy is asking for 5 hours a week commitment for mentoring...
Sep 12 19:02:38 <saste>	yes, the first question is if we have any volunteering mentor
Sep 12 19:02:45 <saste>	then we can seek for the funding
Sep 12 19:02:50 <saste>	or use part of our money
Sep 12 19:02:51 <yayoi>	make sense
Sep 12 19:03:43 <michaelni>	saste, i might volunteer to mentor 1 applicant maybe, depends on applicants ad exact projects ...
Sep 12 19:03:46 <saste>	which is about 8.5 K$ and 9.125 K€
Sep 12 19:03:56 <reynaldo>	saste: maybe we can start workingon an ideas page and proceed from there
Sep 12 19:04:02 <saste>	reynaldo, ok
Sep 12 19:04:16 <saste>	how much time do we have to apply?
Sep 12 19:04:28 <reynaldo>	not sure
Sep 12 19:04:37 <reynaldo>	but thats usually a bit flexible for us
Sep 12 19:04:42 <llogan2>	reynaldo: do you think samsung would be interested in funding or partial funding again?
Sep 12 19:04:43 <yayoi>	i am not sure for participants org
Sep 12 19:04:45 <reynaldo>	we are in good terms with the org
Sep 12 19:05:00 <reynaldo>	llogan2: yes, I think and hope so. ust have to confirm
Sep 12 19:05:04 <reynaldo>	just/
Sep 12 19:05:06 <yayoi>	it was not very clear as far as reading their website..
Sep 12 19:05:33 <reynaldo>	their website is never too clear tbh
Sep 12 19:05:37 <yayoi>	i see
Sep 12 19:05:39 <llogan2>	i'll try to do a better job at mentioning the funding organizations.
Sep 12 19:05:49 <yayoi>	but you can start accepting applicants.. end of the sep? 
Sep 12 19:06:04 <yayoi>	well i can ask them
Sep 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
Sep 12 19:06:26 <yayoi>	well if they sponsor one intern, their deadline is Nov2.
Sep 12 19:06:31 <yayoi>	i mean for us
Sep 12 19:06:46 <llogan2>	reynaldo: ok. and maybe a summary of what was achieved.
Sep 12 19:07:05 <saste>	BTW, at the moment only me and michaelni are deciding how to use the project fund
Sep 12 19:07:08 <reynaldo>	yeah, that was the idea
Sep 12 19:07:18 <reynaldo>	saste: and I think you guys rock at that
Sep 12 19:07:22 <saste>	this should probably change once we have a voting committee
Sep 12 19:07:32 <reynaldo>	yes, it might
Sep 12 19:07:37 <reynaldo>	but Im happy with you guys doing it
Sep 12 19:07:43 <llogan2>	saste: can we afford a student if we don't get funding?
Sep 12 19:07:47 <reynaldo>	havent seen ppl arguing about it at least
Sep 12 19:08:13 <saste>	llogan2, we have the money, so we can
Sep 12 19:08:30 <saste>	llogan2, the question is how much money to use from our general fund
Sep 12 19:08:35 <reynaldo>	guys do we have any other pressing issue to discuss? I'd like to leave now
Sep 12 19:08:41 <reynaldo>	family weekend and stuff
Sep 12 19:08:44 <saste>	at the moment this is the situation:
Sep 12 19:08:58 <saste>	FFmpeg SPI general fund: 8446.80 $
Sep 12 19:08:59 <michaelni>	saste, its the people on the ML deciding on funds really in theory IIRC what we agreed on
Sep 12 19:09:12 <saste>	FFmpeg SPI OPW fund: 23.40
Sep 12 19:09:31 <saste>	FFmpeg ffis fund: 9125 € 
Sep 12 19:09:50 <reynaldo>	ok, leaving. Glad we made some desicions & happy to help. see you guys around o.
Sep 12 19:09:53 <reynaldo>	o/
Sep 12 19:09:55 <saste>	michaelni, yes, in practice in case there is no consensus we need to both agree
Sep 12 19:10:13 <saste>	reynaldo, see you, thanks
Sep 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
Sep 12 19:10:28 <michaelni>	reynaldo, have fun!
Sep 12 19:10:34 <yayoi>	sure
Sep 12 19:10:35 <reynaldo>	saste: will ping you when the script is ready
Sep 12 19:10:38 <reynaldo>	thank guys
Sep 12 19:10:39 <reynaldo>	bye bye
Sep 12 19:10:56 <yayoi>	bye see you in san jose :)
Sep 12 19:11:09 <saste>	should we move on to the next topic?
Sep 12 19:11:22 <saste>	yayoi, anything else to say/comment about?
Sep 12 19:11:30 <yayoi>	not at this moment
Sep 12 19:11:45 <yayoi>	i like to know how many will be a mentor and fund needs to be raiseed or not
Sep 12 19:12:00 <llogan2>	we could always use funds.
Sep 12 19:12:06 <saste>	yayoi, at least we have a mentor, michaelni
Sep 12 19:12:07 <yayoi>	true
Sep 12 19:12:16 <yayoi>	but my question is mostly logistics
Sep 12 19:12:26 <saste>	michaelni, do you agree to use our money if we don't find a sponsor or a partial sponsor?
Sep 12 19:12:35 <yayoi>	like bank account and etc...
Sep 12 19:12:44 <yayoi>	also contact list would be nice..
Sep 12 19:12:59 <michaelni>	saste, no objection from me but i would prefer to find a sponsor
Sep 12 19:13:09 <saste>	michaelni, same for me
Sep 12 19:13:14 <llogan2>	yayoi: a sponsor contact list? I don't think we have one.
Sep 12 19:13:18 <yayoi>	oh
Sep 12 19:13:28 <yayoi>	okay how you get donation usually?
Sep 12 19:13:32 <saste>	so let's try to find a sponsor to cover at least part of the expense
Sep 12 19:13:53 <saste>	yayoi, http://ffmpeg.org/donations.html
Sep 12 19:14:05 <saste>	or we contact sponsors directly, like in the case of samsung
Sep 12 19:14:10 <yayoi>	right
Sep 12 19:14:18 <yayoi>	but don't they give you their contact information though?
Sep 12 19:14:32 <yayoi>	like at the end of the year,,, i assume they want their tax document etc??
Sep 12 19:14:35 <saste>	yayoi, ask reynaldo, he was dealing with that
Sep 12 19:14:41 <yayoi>	oh okay
Sep 12 19:14:46 <yayoi>	i will 
Sep 12 19:15:09 *	am_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
Sep 12 19:15:14 <saste>	next point is: any other business
Sep 12 19:15:24 <llogan2>	yayoi: we will also make a news entry, tweets, etc.
Sep 12 19:15:35 <yayoi>	nice
Sep 12 19:15:41 <llogan2>	begg...asking for monies
Sep 12 19:15:42 <saste>	about the use of the money: it's something we should handle once we have a decision system
Sep 12 19:15:42 <yayoi>	are you going to update the website?
Sep 12 19:16:04 <saste>	possibly if we go with a committee that should be decided by the committee
Sep 12 19:16:07 <llogan2>	yeah, unless i forget or get lazy
Sep 12 19:16:20 <yayoi>	haha
Sep 12 19:16:33 *	reynaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
Sep 12 19:17:14 <llogan2>	actually, i just thought of a local organization i could ask. i know the director personally.
Sep 12 19:17:23 <yayoi>	nice
Sep 12 19:17:45 <durandal_1707>	can we talk about lavfi limitations?
Sep 12 19:18:12 <yayoi>	well please let me know if you
This FFmeeting was hosted on ​irc://irc.freenode.net/ffmpeg-meeting on 2015-09-12, at 15 UTC.

Sep 12 17:00:59 <saste>	allright time to go
Sep 12 17:01:18 <saste>	i summoned this meeting to discuss some relevant topics
Sep 12 17:01:27 *	Shiz (~shiz at hydrogenium.shiz.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:02:07 <saste>	you can see in the topics the pastebin containing the topics of the day to discuss
Sep 12 17:02:22 <saste>	http://pastebin.com/e6Q0pY6Z
Sep 12 17:02:29 <saste>	first topic is
Sep 12 17:02:41 <saste>	ABI compatibility policy
Sep 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
Sep 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?
Sep 12 17:03:50 <atomnuker>	wasn't wm4 the person who proposed it in the first place? where is he?
Sep 12 17:03:54 <saste>	I don't know, maybe someone can spend a few words describing the proposed options
Sep 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)
Sep 12 17:04:13 <nevcairiel>	well the options are pretty simple, do or don't
Sep 12 17:04:23 <saste>	then we can delay the voting to any other means, not necessarily we have to decide/vote right now
Sep 12 17:04:39 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: indeed, that is the root alternative; there are a few subquestions after this is decided.
Sep 12 17:04:50 <ubitux>	atomnuker: wm4 kind of ragequited irc because it wasn't going fast enough apparently; try to /invite him
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:05:13 <atomnuker>	I'll ping him on ffmpeg-devel, that should get his attention
Sep 12 17:05:50 <ubitux>	we probably need to agree about how we "advertise" the policy
Sep 12 17:06:02 <ubitux>	be it a news, or a dedicated pages to "current goals"
Sep 12 17:06:18 <ubitux>	just to ease taking decisions and keeping up with them
Sep 12 17:06:23 <BBB>	so the discussion was more about how it was advertised or “how the patch was concealing its purpose”, right?
Sep 12 17:07:12 *	Easyfab (~chatzilla at ip-62-241-112-16.evc.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:07:21 *	Easyfab (~chatzilla at ip-62-241-112-16.evc.net) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:07:23 <Cigaes>	BBB: from my PoV, right; I have mixed opinions on the decision itself.
Sep 12 17:07:31 <BBB>	who was actually advocating _for_ keeping the abi compat options (as opposed to the discussion around it being concealed)?
Sep 12 17:07:47 <nevcairiel>	I don't think anyone was directly for keeping it
Sep 12 17:07:48 *	Easyfab (~chatzilla at ip-62-241-112-16.evc.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:08:18 <nevcairiel>	The discussion mostly went in circles around the policy issue
Sep 12 17:08:24 *	llogan2 (lou at 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe70:2ed2) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:08:50 <BBB>	right, I’m re-reading it now
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:09:17 <BBB>	so …
Sep 12 17:09:36 <BBB>	cehoyos isn’t here, is he?
Sep 12 17:09:45 <nevcairiel>	dont think so
Sep 12 17:09:49 <nevcairiel>	unless he uses a new name
Sep 12 17:10:08 *	jamrial (~jamrial at 181.22.42.38) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:10:13 <BBB>	does nicolas do irc?
Sep 12 17:10:25 <nevcairiel>	thats Cigaes i thought
Sep 12 17:10:51 <BBB>	ah :) ok sorry didn’t know
Sep 12 17:11:01 <BBB>	all makes sense now
Sep 12 17:11:13 <saste>	so we're basically about topic #2, the policy decision process
Sep 12 17:11:23 <ubitux>	it's kind of related
Sep 12 17:11:28 <BBB>	one sort of morphed into the other… we can do #2 before we do #1
Sep 12 17:11:32 <BBB>	that might make more sense
Sep 12 17:11:37 <saste>	do you have technical arguments to discuss about the ABI policy to adopt
Sep 12 17:11:52 <saste>	or things which were not discussed on the ML
Sep 12 17:11:56 <nevcairiel>	unless someone wants to speak for keeping it?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:13:02 <ubitux>	yeah, could be just that
Sep 12 17:13:06 <nevcairiel>	I don
Sep 12 17:13:18 <nevcairiel>	I don't think a  news entry or something is needed, changelog is mandatory of course
Sep 12 17:13:28 <nevcairiel>	the feature seems hardly used
Sep 12 17:13:34 <nevcairiel>	(if at all)
Sep 12 17:13:42 <ubitux>	we had a section for important behaviour changes in 2.6 
Sep 12 17:13:45 <ubitux>	iirc
Sep 12 17:13:50 <BBB>	APIChanges also exists
Sep 12 17:13:54 <jamrial>	what would happen with the sonames if we drop the ABI compatibility policy?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:14:18 <saste>	so a news entry could be useless in that case
Sep 12 17:14:29 *	yayoi (~sndh at 204.28.118.156) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:15:04 <BBB>	jamrial: how did we fix that in the past?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:15:10 <BBB>	jamrial: is that why we have a 100 delta?
Sep 12 17:15:40 <Cigaes>	Distributing two incompatible libraries with the same SONAME is irresponsible.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:15:55 <Cigaes>	Bumping the major version once and for all is a simple solution.
Sep 12 17:16:12 <BBB>	so can we just bump to a different major than libav?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:16:21 <BBB>	like, they use libavcodec.57, we use libavcodec.58?
Sep 12 17:16:30 <BBB>	(or the inverse, I don’t really care)
Sep 12 17:16:32 *	J_Darnley has quit (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
Sep 12 17:16:33 <nevcairiel>	strictly speaking we already distribute incompatible libraries with the same soname
Sep 12 17:16:33 <Cigaes>	BBB: no, because they will eventually use 58.
Sep 12 17:16:47 <nevcairiel>	because noone uses the flag to enable the compat mode
Sep 12 17:17:03 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: yes, but the ABI is mostly compatible even without it.
Sep 12 17:17:05 *	J_Darnley (~J_Darnley at d51A44418.access.telenet.be) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:17:12 <nevcairiel>	"mostly" is irrelevant :)
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:17:24 <atomnuker>	Cigaes: IIRC there were plans to talk about that at VDD
Sep 12 17:17:30 <michaelni>	will we bump to 200 if theres another fork that doest bump ?
Sep 12 17:17:40 <jamrial>	nevcairiel: true, and in general people that use one project don't use the other
Sep 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 
Sep 12 17:17:53 <BBB>	I think sonames conflict is something to be discussed with libav
Sep 12 17:18:05 <BBB>	so the most efficient way to deal with it may be at vdd, not here
Sep 12 17:18:13 <iive>	we can also rename the libraries
Sep 12 17:18:13 <BBB>	since “they” are not here to agree on a solution with us
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:18:45 <iive>	we can use the debian naming scheme by default.
Sep 12 17:19:05 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: agreed.
Sep 12 17:20:33 <BBB>	saste: I propose we move to #2 and then revisit #1 afterwards if needed
Sep 12 17:20:41 <nevcairiel>	(a proper fork should rename their SONAME entirely, anyway)
Sep 12 17:20:47 <Cigaes>	BBB: seconded.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:20:58 <atomnuker>	nevcairiel: I agree as well
Sep 12 17:21:03 <saste>	BBB: I agree
Sep 12 17:21:16 <Cigaes>	jamrial: distros are not the only distribution channel.
Sep 12 17:21:20 <saste>	if there are no objections we are moving to point #2
Sep 12 17:21:32 <nevcairiel>	jamrial: or they ship renamed binaries, ie using the --build-suffix option
Sep 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?
Sep 12 17:23:07 <BBB>	you’re very quiet michaelni 
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:23:26 <michaelni>	BBB, ive nothing to say :)
Sep 12 17:23:48 <Cigaes>	jamrial: not only. If someone does "./configure --enable-shared && make install", it should not break their system either.*
Sep 12 17:24:10 <saste>	it looks to me the most controversial point is having/not having vetoes
Sep 12 17:24:47 <BBB>	well there’s also the more general “when consensus cannot be reached, now what?”
Sep 12 17:24:55 <saste>	with one formal or de-facto leader it was relatively easy to set controversies allowing the leader to decide
Sep 12 17:24:56 <BBB>	vetoes are just one part of that question
Sep 12 17:25:36 <llogan2>	how do other big projects deal with the situation?
Sep 12 17:25:52 <saste>	anybody is for or against a committe or something?
Sep 12 17:25:58 <saste>	no more than three people
Sep 12 17:26:00 <BBB>	some have a bofh
Sep 12 17:26:16 <BBB>	others have a committee (although that didn’t go well for xfree86)
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:26:19 <nevcairiel>	llogan2:  They usually tend to have a subsystem maintainer or an overall leader to decide, from what I hear
Sep 12 17:26:20 <saste>	that's a form of leadership of course, regarding the overall project design
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:26:56 <BBB>	(that leads to xfree86 situations)
Sep 12 17:27:00 <jamrial>	we could also have different people for different parts of the project. maintainers if you will
Sep 12 17:27:16 <BBB>	jamrial: well, we already have that, this is more about global decisions
Sep 12 17:27:20 <saste>	jamrial, the problem is about deciding overall design, like the ABI things
Sep 12 17:27:21 <BBB>	or are you advocating global maintainers?
Sep 12 17:27:23 *	reynaldo (~rverdejo at c-67-169-80-122.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:27:28 <BBB>	(like a bofh :) )
Sep 12 17:27:36 <saste>	local maintainer always worked pretty well with FFmpeg, I think
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:27:58 <reynaldo>	Sat 8:30AM here, thanks and hello o/ :)
Sep 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).
Sep 12 17:28:11 <BBB>	right
Sep 12 17:28:15 <atomnuker>	the MAINTAINERS file sometimes list people from libav as well
Sep 12 17:28:48 <saste>	atomnuker, cleaning MAINTAINERS is from hard to impossible, with no explicit reply from old maintainers
Sep 12 17:28:48 *	lglinskih has quit (Quit: This computer has gone to sleep)
Sep 12 17:28:54 <llogan2>	reynaldo: im to your timezone on the left
Sep 12 17:29:21 <ubitux>	what were the last things the project had problems to make up its mind?
Sep 12 17:29:31 <nevcairiel>	ubitux: pkg-config :D
Sep 12 17:29:34 <ubitux>	i remember pkg-config... and this recent abi thing, but what else?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:29:45 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: yeah right, but is there anything else in these last 4 years?
Sep 12 17:29:55 <jamrial>	BBB: maybe something like said committe, but one for different part of the code
Sep 12 17:30:05 <llogan2>	saste: a grat purge of MAINTAINERS?
Sep 12 17:30:05 <Cigaes>	ubitux: subtitles character encoding API.
Sep 12 17:30:17 <reynaldo>	llogan2: !
Sep 12 17:30:19 <ubitux>	actually, same question about similar problems libav had without leader to take a decision
Sep 12 17:30:37 <BBB>	libav tried to find common agreement
Sep 12 17:30:38 <nevcairiel>	libav didnt really have those discussions
Sep 12 17:30:51 <iive>	they probably had the on the phone
Sep 12 17:30:52 <BBB>	and if that didn’t happen, the developer typiclly fell off the boat
Sep 12 17:30:56 <nevcairiel>	when someone objects, its usually on a technical level
Sep 12 17:31:06 <nevcairiel>	or yeah, the developer went away
Sep 12 17:31:11 <nevcairiel>	like mru
Sep 12 17:31:20 <BBB>	or me :)
Sep 12 17:31:34 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: you know for a fact that mru went away because of disagreements?
Sep 12 17:31:50 <ubitux>	loosing a developer everytime there is a disagreement is kind of an expensive cost
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:32:58 <saste>	in case we want a committe, we need some metrics to decide if a developer can have voting rights
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:33:11 <llogan2>	BBB: ...rotational makes sense to me.
Sep 12 17:33:19 <Cigaes>	saste: that is the big problem indeed.
Sep 12 17:33:55 <BBB>	I think it’s a sign that leaderless without a disagreement resolution mechanism does not work
Sep 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
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:34:28 <BBB>	that’s true
Sep 12 17:34:32 *	J_Darnley has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
Sep 12 17:34:39 <BBB>	a rotation can mean you stay if others are ok with it
Sep 12 17:34:42 <llogan2>	but what if others want to participate?
Sep 12 17:34:56 *	J_Darnley (~J_Darnley at d51a44418.access.telenet.be) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 17:35:12 <nevcairiel>	then the other developers are clearly not satisfied anymore, and the condition doesnt apply .)
Sep 12 17:35:39 <Cigaes>	llogan2: then said others are not satisfied, and indeed, they should have a chance.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:36:17 <reynaldo>	the first one was a question ^ ?
Sep 12 17:36:44 <BBB>	reynaldo: no, nothing was decided yet
Sep 12 17:36:51 <reynaldo>	BBB ok, thanks
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:37:30 <nevcairiel>	you mean a judge
Sep 12 17:37:42 <atomnuker>	yes, or a voting process like reynaldo said
Sep 12 17:38:05 <reynaldo>	I'd have both
Sep 12 17:38:07 <nevcairiel>	or mediator or arbitrator if those are better words
Sep 12 17:38:20 <Cigaes>	atomnuker: who steps in when developers call upon him/her.
Sep 12 17:38:25 <llogan2>	media-tor
Sep 12 17:38:28 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: the voters
Sep 12 17:38:37 <atomnuker>	but the key point is not to intervene too early or too late
Sep 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
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:39:32 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: Im thinking beyond patch disagreements
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:39:48 <reynaldo>	Im thinking on the same structure handling every disagreement
Sep 12 17:39:52 <saste>	that what happens when you have a single one developer
Sep 12 17:39:59 <Cigaes>	Of course, for important questions, the decision must be from all developers, not just leader/committee.
Sep 12 17:40:03 <saste>	but then the more you have to decide, the slower the process is
Sep 12 17:40:07 <BBB>	I am happy with saste’s 3-developer committee thing
Sep 12 17:40:07 <Cigaes>	If only: nominating the leader/committee.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:40:50 <reynaldo>	saste, BBB that's 3 devs & no single leader ?
Sep 12 17:40:52 <Cigaes>	We can vote on the number of members in the leading committee the first time we vote.
Sep 12 17:40:57 <llogan2>	saste: sounds good to me
Sep 12 17:41:15 <BBB>	reynaldo: yeah. although leader seemed to work fine also
Sep 12 17:41:52 <llogan2>	Benevolent Triumvorate for Life
Sep 12 17:42:19 <saste>	BBB: and they need to be able to judge about the technical merits of the decisions to take
Sep 12 17:42:20 <iive>	yes, fixed structure tend to accumulate power with time.
Sep 12 17:42:34 <saste>	then we would need a rotation mechanism
Sep 12 17:42:49 <BBB>	right, that’s why I mentioned rotation mechanism
Sep 12 17:42:58 <ubitux>	what if the leader & 1 person agree against 10 persons?
Sep 12 17:43:13 <nevcairiel>	then you didnt pick a good leader
Sep 12 17:43:14 <iive>	there is another solution. If there is dead-lock, we can pick the solution randomly
Sep 12 17:43:16 <ubitux>	10 persons being more or less active developers
Sep 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?
Sep 12 17:43:28 <Cigaes>	ubitux: then why did they chose that leader?
Sep 12 17:43:29 <atomnuker>	ubitux: down with the leader
Sep 12 17:43:40 <reynaldo>	this is why I think we should have 1 leader + small commitee ^
Sep 12 17:43:52 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: if leaders are unsure, they can ask for counsel.
Sep 12 17:43:53 <saste>	i'm not even sure about the leader
Sep 12 17:43:54 <reynaldo>	so leader & commitee can oversee each other and step in if needed
Sep 12 17:44:00 <saste>	probably a committe is better
Sep 12 17:44:09 <saste>	so we avoid conflict between leader and committe
Sep 12 17:44:13 <llogan2>	i odn't think anyone wants to be "the leader"
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:44:49 <jamrial>	ubitux: have a voting first, if those 10 people are the majority, leader/committee doesn't intervene?
Sep 12 17:45:10 <ubitux>	ok ok
Sep 12 17:45:23 <iive>	Is there another solution that doesn't involve Politics?
Sep 12 17:45:35 <llogan2>	armwrestling
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:45:45 <reynaldo>	this is rather important guys ^^
Sep 12 17:45:53 <iive>	llogan2: I was thinking of lottery, but that's find too :)
Sep 12 17:45:55 <reynaldo>	and something that needs to be considered
Sep 12 17:46:09 <atomnuker>	iive: what we currently do: call a meeting once conflicts happen
Sep 12 17:46:30 <saste>	atomnuker, the truth is that the meeting doesn't resolve things, most of the time
Sep 12 17:46:43 <saste>	unless you give voting power to the attendees
Sep 12 17:46:52 <saste>	in that case you need to define who are the attendees
Sep 12 17:47:00 <saste>	this applies in case there are controversies
Sep 12 17:47:15 <saste>	note that in most cases decisions are resolved with no conflict
Sep 12 17:47:16 <atomnuker>	saste: they should mostly resolve themselves given time
Sep 12 17:47:26 <saste>	that's more than 99% of the issues
Sep 12 17:47:45 <saste>	the decision process is about that 1% of issues which can't be settled with the "normal" means
Sep 12 17:47:58 <Cigaes>	saste: hear, hear. Let us focus on that please.
Sep 12 17:48:03 <BBB>	++
Sep 12 17:48:58 <saste>	can we settle reasonable criteria for selecting voters?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:49:29 <reynaldo>	plain criteria, easy to follow
Sep 12 17:49:35 <llogan2>	why inactivity?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:50:11 <reynaldo>	llogan2: thats my take, lets hear others and then discuss on their details
Sep 12 17:50:17 <BBB>	llogan2: my term “mplungarians” is only partially derogatory
Sep 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.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:50:31 <reynaldo>	guys, can you propose your formulas and then we can discuss
Sep 12 17:50:34 <reynaldo>	lets focuss please
Sep 12 17:50:45 <reynaldo>	otherwise this will just drag on and on
Sep 12 17:50:58 <BBB>	I support reynaldo’s notation
Sep 12 17:51:36 <reynaldo>	thanks. do we have any other alternative? guys? anything else to suggest ?
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:51:50 <reynaldo>	if not, we can discuss on the details on my proposal and settle on something
Sep 12 17:52:02 <BBB>	but yeah we can discuss details on ML
Sep 12 17:52:05 <Cigaes>	BBB: discussing who loses voting rights can wait.
Sep 12 17:52:08 <BBB>	and then let’s move on to #3
Sep 12 17:52:16 <saste>	allright
Sep 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"
Sep 12 17:52:19 <reynaldo>	no, Id rather do it here than to the mailing list
Sep 12 17:52:31 <reynaldo>	this is the single most important desicion we should make
Sep 12 17:52:37 <BBB>	ok
Sep 12 17:52:57 <saste>	llogan2, sounds good
Sep 12 17:53:20 <nevcairiel>	llogan2: define active
Sep 12 17:53:32 <reynaldo>	so, inactivity: 2 years / number of commits to reach voting rights: 50 in one year
Sep 12 17:53:41 <reynaldo>	sounds like something you'd be able to agree on ^ ?
Sep 12 17:53:54 <BBB>	ok
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:54:14 <Cigaes>	I think we can not decide on a criterion without having a few stats.
Sep 12 17:54:19 <reynaldo>	sorry, mean to say "50" not, "50" in one year
Sep 12 17:54:31 <ubitux>	anyone to share a git command to raise those names?
Sep 12 17:54:53 <ubitux>	(so we can evaluate how much people are involved and the concerned ppl know about that)
Sep 12 17:55:05 <reynaldo>	my bet its it will come out to ~20ppl or maybe less
Sep 12 17:55:08 <reynaldo>	a maneagable set
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:55:21 <nevcairiel>	ubitux: git shortlog -s -n
Sep 12 17:55:36 <reynaldo>	llogan2: not every single time, sometimes life just takes over but you remain lurkin around
Sep 12 17:55:41 <reynaldo>	just not actively contributing
Sep 12 17:56:10 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: now we need the 2-year parameters
Sep 12 17:56:18 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: do we invite libav ppl to vote too? :)
Sep 12 17:56:22 <reynaldo>	happens when ppl change jobs, have kids, get sick, you name it
Sep 12 17:56:22 <jamrial>	ubitux: git shortlog -ns --no-merges n2.5..n2.8 maybe
Sep 12 17:56:31 <reynaldo>	libav has nothing to do with this unless they are "dual"
Sep 12 17:56:48 <ubitux>	jamrial: release scoped then, not time scoped?
Sep 12 17:56:48 <llogan2>	reynaldo: but that means they are now too bust to deal with FFdecisions
Sep 12 17:56:48 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: in that case, maybe it is normal they do not vote.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:56:53 <llogan2>	*busy
Sep 12 17:57:01 <jamrial>	use commits instead of tags then
Sep 12 17:57:08 <nevcairiel>	ubitux: find a rev in time thats 2 years ago then, dont think it gets any easier
Sep 12 17:57:21 <Cigaes>	OTHO, someone reviewing patches on the ML without producing them should have vote right too.
Sep 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
Sep 12 17:57:39 <ubitux>	(nevcairiel: pretty sure git has a time parser for that kind of stuff)
Sep 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 ?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 17:58:44 <reynaldo>	we need to discuss "reentry" how can you get back to voting after a period of inactivty
Sep 12 17:58:56 <BBB>	reynaldo: same as initial entry?
Sep 12 17:59:00 <saste>	anybody against the reynaldo commit criteria about what an active developer is?
Sep 12 17:59:05 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: yeah, they can decide that and pretty much anything for that matter
Sep 12 17:59:09 <BBB>	saste: sgtm
Sep 12 17:59:11 <reynaldo>	BBB: good
Sep 12 17:59:14 <saste>	are we also going to count merged commits?
Sep 12 17:59:15 <reynaldo>	maybe half that ?
Sep 12 17:59:19 <reynaldo>	BBB ^
Sep 12 17:59:37 <Cigaes>	saste: if we consider reuniting with libav, then libav guys must have voting right.
Sep 12 17:59:44 <iive>	well, whoever wants to vote, could do 50 K&R formatting commits and be done :D
Sep 12 17:59:50 <saste>	Cigaes, I'm fine with that
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:00:10 <durandal_1707>	Lol
Sep 12 18:00:11 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: reuninting with libav is not something that has to be decided now
Sep 12 18:00:22 <reynaldo>	thats why we have voters
Sep 12 18:00:29 *	lglinskih (~lglinskih at verda.kir.elagin.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:01:19 <saste>	llogan2, indeed
Sep 12 18:01:25 <reynaldo>	lets settle on a 1y inactivity ?
Sep 12 18:01:30 <reynaldo>	saste: ^
Sep 12 18:01:33 <llogan2>	"hey, babtiste, you're a voter"
Sep 12 18:01:48 <reynaldo>	like, a kid, a sickness, etc
Sep 12 18:02:00 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: git shortlog -ns --since '{2 years ago}'
Sep 12 18:02:19 <jamrial>	nice
Sep 12 18:02:26 <llogan2>	reynaldo: perhaps i do not understand your critera.
Sep 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)
Sep 12 18:02:53 <ubitux>	should we target a number of commits or just the most actives ?
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:03:14 <jamrial>	saste: we have developers that don't have nearly as much as that but are active in the ml
Sep 12 18:03:26 <ubitux>	like, git shortlog -ns --since '{2 years ago}' | head -n20 maybe
Sep 12 18:03:40 <ubitux>	this looks like a good list to me ^
Sep 12 18:03:48 <saste>	jamrial, I think we can agree that any criteria will be flawed in some way
Sep 12 18:03:53 <ubitux>	or maybe 25
Sep 12 18:04:00 <reynaldo>	jamrial: activity on the mailing list, incredible as it sounds, has been a problem some times :)
Sep 12 18:04:04 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: do you insist to have the same criterion for the initial list and later proceedings?
Sep 12 18:04:09 <reynaldo>	I think we can let the voters decide on such issues
Sep 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". 
Sep 12 18:04:17 <saste>	we just need an objective metrics, then the new voters can fine tune the system
Sep 12 18:04:21 <ubitux>	30 looks fine too, it reaches the 50 commits one
Sep 12 18:04:25 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: I'd let the rules to be stabilized by the voters
Sep 12 18:04:29 <reynaldo>	so lets make them initial
Sep 12 18:04:30 <jamrial>	saste: true, which is why we should think how to include said people
Sep 12 18:04:34 <reynaldo>	and see where it leads us
Sep 12 18:04:36 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: then let us only discuss the initial criterion.
Sep 12 18:04:52 <ubitux>	saste: git shortlog -ns --since '{2 years ago}' | head -n30 sounds like a fine list to me currently
Sep 12 18:04:56 <reynaldo>	yes, I had the impression that's what we were dealing with
Sep 12 18:05:35 <jamrial>	example, rcombs has been very active this year, but he has 48 commits
Sep 12 18:05:36 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: you wrote about "loose your right" and "regain it"
Sep 12 18:05:48 <Cigaes>	That is not relevant for the immediate vote.
Sep 12 18:06:02 <reynaldo>	oh, point there
Sep 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 ?
Sep 12 18:06:11 <jamrial>	(why am i sixth on that list, wth)
Sep 12 18:06:16 <reynaldo>	well, consider those guideline suggestions :)
Sep 12 18:06:25 <ubitux>	jamrial: redundant merges probably
Sep 12 18:06:47 <ubitux>	i shouldn't be counted though
Sep 12 18:06:57 <nevcairiel>	pretty hard to filter out the dupes
Sep 12 18:07:07 <nevcairiel>	unless you directly subtract the same list from libav
Sep 12 18:07:09 <BBB>	I have a secret way
Sep 12 18:07:14 <BBB>	right
Sep 12 18:07:14 <reynaldo>	iive: top commiters can change by the minute, you need something more stable
Sep 12 18:07:17 <ubitux>	i actually don't see dups
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:07:52 <iive>	reynaldo: not with 15 people.
Sep 12 18:08:01 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: "top committers at $date".
Sep 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?
Sep 12 18:08:36 <reynaldo>	we are humas after all
Sep 12 18:08:42 <reynaldo>	one will make more sense, Im sure
Sep 12 18:08:43 <reynaldo>	;)
Sep 12 18:08:51 <iive>	1. giving and taking voting rights gives bad vibe...
Sep 12 18:08:52 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: for a punctual choice, they are equivalent.
Sep 12 18:09:02 <reynaldo>	I understand at least BBB and saste already back that formula up ^
Sep 12 18:09:08 <iive>	2. having a lot of people arguing is bad.
Sep 12 18:10:06 <iive>	I think that Prakinson gives 12 as maximum of the people who can work productively in a group.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:10:34 <ubitux>	iive: most people won't vote
Sep 12 18:10:52 <BBB>	jamrial: you mean as a later extension to the formula?
Sep 12 18:10:53 <ubitux>	when there is an issue like pkg-config, at most 10 ppl will get involved
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:10:57 <iive>	most people don't want to get involved in politics
Sep 12 18:10:57 <ubitux>	most of the others don't care
Sep 12 18:11:00 <jamrial>	rcombs and kierank would be left out as is, and i consider them active
Sep 12 18:11:01 <reynaldo>	long term planing and what not
Sep 12 18:11:16 <BBB>	jamrial: llogan would be out also (he’s 40, not 50)
Sep 12 18:11:21 <ubitux>	jamrial: what if we reduce to 1 year?
Sep 12 18:11:34 <durandal_1707>	let just vote for pkgconfig thing
Sep 12 18:11:38 <jamrial>	and so would saste
Sep 12 18:12:05 <reynaldo>	the voters commitee can garnt voting rights to ppl not initially selected, thats their prerogative
Sep 12 18:12:05 <Cigaes>	Me too.
Sep 12 18:12:12 <jamrial>	ubitux: i'm checking one year right now. rcomns, kierank, llogan and saste don't have 50 commits
Sep 12 18:12:17 <saste>	jamrial, personally, I don't care as long as we have a bootstrap criteria
Sep 12 18:12:20 <iive>	yes, commit number is bad measure too. because one might have 100 1liners and another can have 2x 1000lines
Sep 12 18:12:35 <llogan2>	this is hard.
Sep 12 18:12:36 <Cigaes>	saste: idem for me.
Sep 12 18:12:41 <saste>	also, I can send some typo-fixing patches if that matters ;-)
Sep 12 18:12:50 <reynaldo>	ok. I have a proposal
Sep 12 18:13:04 <reynaldo>	the one I descrived + include some ppl that should be left out in the initial
Sep 12 18:13:08 <reynaldo>	list
Sep 12 18:13:12 <reynaldo>	talking about saste, llogan, etc
Sep 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
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:14:03 <ubitux>	(sorry long run sentence)
Sep 12 18:14:53 <saste>	llogan2, in your case we should probably count also ffmpeg-web committs
Sep 12 18:15:01 <BBB>	so reynaldo’s proposal and have these people include additionals by majority vote?
Sep 12 18:15:05 <BBB>	saste: indeed
Sep 12 18:15:14 <reynaldo>	BBB: yes, I like that
Sep 12 18:15:20 <saste>	anyway, I'm really fine with any objective criterion, then it can be fine-tuned later
Sep 12 18:15:26 <reynaldo>	great
Sep 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 http://pastebin.com/kCQc55jb)
Sep 12 18:15:46 <reynaldo>	do we need to vote this or can we call it settled and move on?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 18:16:16 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: so 20 first without libav looks sane?
Sep 12 18:16:28 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: thanks
Sep 12 18:16:42 <BBB>	so can we take that as decision then?
Sep 12 18:16:46 <reynaldo>	looks sane to me, missing some indeed but that can be sort out latter
Sep 12 18:16:46 <nevcairiel>	ubitux: sure, even includes saste again =p
Sep 12 18:16:47 <BBB>	who objects?
Sep 12 18:16:48 <saste>	what if we include libav
Sep 12 18:16:59 <reynaldo>	what list is that one btw?
Sep 12 18:17:17 <saste>	I don't want to make arbitrary distinctions, a committ is a committ
Sep 12 18:17:20 <reynaldo>	the one comming from my proposal ?
Sep 12 18:17:22 <Cigaes>	saste: if we merge, we have to redo the whole decision process with them anyway.
Sep 12 18:17:25 <reynaldo>	saste: +1
Sep 12 18:17:32 <saste>	then if they don't care they won't vote
Sep 12 18:17:37 <Cigaes>	But it will help to have a united proposition.
Sep 12 18:17:46 <nevcairiel>	saste: people contributing to libav dont seem to have an interest in voting on ffmpeg decisions
Sep 12 18:18:01 <nevcairiel>	I would prefer getting people actually itnerested in ffmpeg
Sep 12 18:18:21 <nevcairiel>	the only people dropping out due to that are the main libav contributors anyway
Sep 12 18:18:44 <ubitux>	so 4-5 more people to add?
Sep 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.
Sep 12 18:19:04 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: stop your sentence before "and".
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:19:31 <ubitux>	Cigaes: we really need a time window
Sep 12 18:19:43 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: trying to cut the list a bit shorter, otherwise first council* coordination will be a pain
Sep 12 18:19:57 <reynaldo>	ubitux: +1
Sep 12 18:20:08 <Cigaes>	reynaldo / ubitux: we do not need a criterion to LOSE voting rights for the initial list.
Sep 12 18:20:30 <reynaldo>	we need, otheriwse it will be a huge and not really representative list
Sep 12 18:20:38 <ubitux>	yeah it's not about loosing but accounting in a given time window (--since '{X months ago}' or whatever)
Sep 12 18:20:49 <reynaldo>	ubitux: +1
Sep 12 18:20:55 <reynaldo>	a year is something I feel ok with
Sep 12 18:21:09 <reynaldo>	and matches our idea of regain* window latter on, not that it matters that much, just saying
Sep 12 18:21:14 <reynaldo>	seems to make sense
Sep 12 18:21:15 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: then your sentence was not correctly stated.
Sep 12 18:21:21 <Cigaes>	Let me try to rephrase:
Sep 12 18:21:29 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: might be, I suck at english too early on saturdays
Sep 12 18:21:31 <reynaldo>	:)
Sep 12 18:21:33 <iive>	Cigaes: you want it as "50 commits for 1 year granting you voting right"
Sep 12 18:22:06 <Cigaes>	iive: that was what I was going to write.
Sep 12 18:22:37 <reynaldo>	year being 2015 for the first list ot the last 365 days counting back from today ?
Sep 12 18:22:43 <reynaldo>	ot/or ?
Sep 12 18:22:49 <Cigaes>	But maybe "50 commits in total including X% in the last year" could be slightly better.
Sep 12 18:23:07 <reynaldo>	please dont go beyond rephrasing, we already agreed on a formula
Sep 12 18:23:27 <ubitux>	i propose to use a git command as formula 
Sep 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).
Sep 12 18:23:35 <iive>	365(+1) days on the day voting is called.
Sep 12 18:23:50 <Cigaes>	iive: dangerous.
Sep 12 18:24:00 <iive>	politics is dangerous
Sep 12 18:24:01 <Cigaes>	iive: once the criterium is stated, it can be gamed.
Sep 12 18:24:14 <iive>	that's why I'm serious about the lottery.
Sep 12 18:24:47 <saste>	Cigaes, a bad criterion => still better than random choice
Sep 12 18:25:03 <Cigaes>	saste: of course.
Sep 12 18:25:11 <BBB>	so do we agree on this now?
Sep 12 18:25:17 <BBB>	I’d like to move to #3 at some point :)
Sep 12 18:25:21 <Cigaes>	saste: but if only past commits are taken into account, it can not be gamed.
Sep 12 18:25:21 <BBB>	(my family wants lunch)
Sep 12 18:25:30 *	cehoyos (~cehoyos at 80-110-108-0.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 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.
Sep 12 18:25:43 <cehoyos>	Hi!
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:26:27 <reynaldo>	please move on ok ?
Sep 12 18:26:52 <saste>	reynaldo, ok
Sep 12 18:26:52 <cehoyos>	Sorrry for the late question:
Sep 12 18:27:05 <cehoyos>	What about merge commits (Just to make sure there are no misunderstandings)?
Sep 12 18:27:10 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: "during the 365 days before the beginning of the meeting"?
Sep 12 18:27:21 <BBB>	cehoyos: no merge commits, but merged commits are fine
Sep 12 18:27:28 <cehoyos>	Ty
Sep 12 18:27:30 <nevcairiel>	BBB: merging is hard work :(
Sep 12 18:27:31 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: yes, yesterday was day 1
Sep 12 18:27:41 <BBB>	nevcairiel: that’s true …
Sep 12 18:27:47 <Cigaes>	cehoyos: only Hendrik and Michael have a lot of those, so it does not matter.
Sep 12 18:27:55 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: UTC/GMT as reference TZ
Sep 12 18:28:00 <BBB>	 219  Hendrik Leppkes
Sep 12 18:28:01 <reynaldo>	Im guessing thats well defined enough
Sep 12 18:28:03 <BBB>	nevcairiel: you’re safe :)
Sep 12 18:28:29 <saste>	who can post the list somewhere, showing the git command?
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:28:33 <Cigaes>	And now we see Clement trying to get back in the list of voters :-Þ
Sep 12 18:28:45 <reynaldo>	ok, saste, can you take care about publishing the list on the webpage ?
Sep 12 18:28:46 <cehoyos>	Cigaes: As said, I only asked for clarification
Sep 12 18:29:01 <BBB>	 438  Clément Bœsch ?
Sep 12 18:29:09 <nevcairiel>	its a joke BBB :P
Sep 12 18:29:10 <BBB>	maybe my list is b0rk3d
Sep 12 18:29:16 <ubitux>	(Cigaes: you got me, exactly what i just said on #ffmpeg-devel :D)
Sep 12 18:29:19 <reynaldo>	saste: can you ?
Sep 12 18:29:30 <saste>	reynaldo, not today for sure
Sep 12 18:29:35 <reynaldo>	maybe tomorrow ?
Sep 12 18:29:44 <saste>	also, do you have a git command?
Sep 12 18:29:49 <reynaldo>	remeber the choosen timeframe please, just that
Sep 12 18:29:50 <cehoyos>	nevcairiel: That sounds like very important point that needs to be made 100% clear.
Sep 12 18:29:58 <saste>	i'm not yet sure about the merged and merge committs
Sep 12 18:30:09 <saste>	cehoyos, indeed
Sep 12 18:30:15 <nevcairiel>	some things get merged from branches specifically meant for ffmpeg
Sep 12 18:30:20 <nevcairiel>	those shuld be counted for sure
Sep 12 18:30:20 <reynaldo>	saste: I have not but I think ubitux had come up with one already
Sep 12 18:30:29 <Cigaes>	git shortlog -s -n --since=2014-09-12T15:00:00Z --until 2015-09-12T15:00:00Z
Sep 12 18:30:29 <nevcairiel>	but I would exclude libav merges at this time
Sep 12 18:30:38 <reynaldo>	otherwise we can sort it out
Sep 12 18:30:38 <BBB>	how?
Sep 12 18:30:43 <saste>	ok, that list also include merged and merge committs?
Sep 12 18:30:48 <nevcairiel>	saste: yes
Sep 12 18:30:57 <saste>	so I'm fine with that
Sep 12 18:31:00 <reynaldo>	I would exclude libav merges too
Sep 12 18:31:01 <Cigaes>	saste: my command count them.
Sep 12 18:31:05 <reynaldo>	i think we all kinda agree on that
Sep 12 18:31:14 <nevcairiel>	its not trivial to exclude them in one command however
Sep 12 18:31:35 <reynaldo>	Cigaes: would you be willing to work on the command
Sep 12 18:31:37 <BBB>	I just subtract the libav stats from the ffmpeg stats :)
Sep 12 18:31:39 <reynaldo>	we can review it latter on
Sep 12 18:31:44 <BBB>	ok, let’s move on?
Sep 12 18:31:46 <reynaldo>	just to make sure its doing the right thing
Sep 12 18:31:47 <nevcairiel>	you would have to run the same command on their repo and subtract the stats, yes
Sep 12 18:31:48 <reynaldo>	yes
Sep 12 18:31:50 <reynaldo>	lets move on
Sep 12 18:32:04 <ubitux>	(note: it can be a script in tools/ directory to raise the names)
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:32:21 <Cigaes>	saste: +1
Sep 12 18:32:22 <reynaldo>	ubitux: sounds like a plan
Sep 12 18:32:32 <Cigaes>	Excluding them is sending the wrong message.
Sep 12 18:33:01 <Cigaes>	We are talking about Vittorio, Anton and Luca, and that is all unless I am mistaken.
Sep 12 18:33:02 <cehoyos>	Cigaes: What message is not including them and what message would be including them?
Sep 12 18:33:08 <cehoyos>	Martin
Sep 12 18:33:15 <nevcairiel>	diego probably too still
Sep 12 18:33:19 <cehoyos>	No
Sep 12 18:33:23 <nevcairiel>	although he vanished
Sep 12 18:33:48 <Cigaes>	Their contribution is technically good, their advice matter. And they probably would not want to vote anyway.
Sep 12 18:33:56 <Cigaes>	Diego is at 43.
Sep 12 18:34:14 <reynaldo>	please stop thinking on libav right now
Sep 12 18:34:17 <BBB>	I’m going to grab lunch, I support whatever you guys decide from this point onwards :)
Sep 12 18:34:19 <reynaldo>	it only complicates things
Sep 12 18:34:31 <reynaldo>	BBB just a minute please
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:34:42 <ubitux>	yeah let's move on, it's details
Sep 12 18:34:44 <cehoyos>	reynaldo: sorry, but either a decision is made or no decision is made
Sep 12 18:34:50 <Cigaes>	saste: strong +1
Sep 12 18:34:53 <ubitux>	there are more important things to worry about wrt libav
Sep 12 18:34:58 <reynaldo>	Im not sure everyone is considering reuniting tbh
Sep 12 18:35:04 <reynaldo>	Id leave that to the voting comitee
Sep 12 18:35:05 <Cigaes>	The voting process must be chosen too.
Sep 12 18:35:19 <llogan2>	saste: fine with me
Sep 12 18:35:41 <reynaldo>	ok. So, can we settle on the initial criteria please ?
Sep 12 18:35:51 <saste>	can we count about who wants to consider merged commits and not?
Sep 12 18:36:01 <reynaldo>	I understand the only thing pending is whether to count commits originating in libav
Sep 12 18:36:04 <reynaldo>	?
Sep 12 18:36:07 <saste>	reynaldo, yes
Sep 12 18:36:39 <saste>	so we have in favour: cigaes, saste, llogan2
Sep 12 18:36:43 <Cigaes>	Can we postpone that to after we decide if we want to try and reunite?
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:37:00 <reynaldo>	counted/
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:37:10 <saste>	A
Sep 12 18:37:13 <reynaldo>	-------------------------------
Sep 12 18:37:14 <reynaldo>	B
Sep 12 18:37:15 <Cigaes>	Because basically, I would say: if we want to reunite, then we MUST include libav developers.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:38:06 <reynaldo>	thats a HUGE conditional for an initial voting group with unlimited powers
Sep 12 18:38:23 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: do you believe they will abuse it?
Sep 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)
Sep 12 18:38:36 <reynaldo>	I think its not worst the risk, even if nil
Sep 12 18:38:38 *	rcombs (rcombs at irc.rcombs.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 18:38:42 <reynaldo>	worth/
Sep 12 18:38:43 <Cigaes>	We can not trust the initial voters and distrust them at the same time.
Sep 12 18:38:43 <saste>	saste, so please let's vote on it, since we can't apparently settle
Sep 12 18:39:00 <reynaldo>	ok, we are B=2 A=1 cn you guys keep voting please
Sep 12 18:39:04 <Cigaes>	A
Sep 12 18:39:04 <nevcairiel>	B
Sep 12 18:39:17 <reynaldo>	B=4 A=1
Sep 12 18:39:17 <iive>	 
Sep 12 18:39:26 <nevcairiel>	reynaldo can't count :)
Sep 12 18:39:27 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: Ahem...
Sep 12 18:39:34 <reynaldo>	oh, 3,2 sorry
Sep 12 18:39:34 <ubitux>	haha
Sep 12 18:39:36 <reynaldo>	:)
Sep 12 18:39:40 <Loriker>	A
Sep 12 18:39:54 <durandal_1707>	B
Sep 12 18:40:11 <reynaldo>	4,3
Sep 12 18:40:34 <saste>	still two minutes then we go on, please vote if you didn't and care about it
Sep 12 18:41:17 <ubitux>	is llogan2 vote accounted?
Sep 12 18:41:34 <atomnuker>	A
Sep 12 18:41:53 <saste>	still one minute
Sep 12 18:42:59 <cehoyos>	B
Sep 12 18:43:15 <reynaldo>	ok, 2 minutes expired
Sep 12 18:43:18 <reynaldo>	initial group decided
Sep 12 18:43:19 <saste>	any more votes?
Sep 12 18:43:27 <reynaldo>	the window expired already
Sep 12 18:43:30 <saste>	allright
Sep 12 18:43:52 <reynaldo>	formula as descrived previously, not counting commits originating in libav
Sep 12 18:44:08 <saste>	A=4 B=5
Sep 12 18:44:09 <reynaldo>	I think we can leave everything else to the voting commitee once its published by monday
Sep 12 18:44:17 <saste>	so let's move on
Sep 12 18:44:20 <saste>	VDD 2015
Sep 12 18:44:22 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: no, the voting process must be decided.
Sep 12 18:44:36 <reynaldo>	I trust the voting comitee can do that
Sep 12 18:44:43 <saste>	some of us will be there
Sep 12 18:45:03 <Cigaes>	I propose: public ballots, on the mailing-list, 1 week deadline, and same kind of ballot than Debian.
Sep 12 18:45:19 <atomnuker>	Cigaes: yep, sounds good
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:45:39 <saste>	I think we will have some real-life meeting where to discuss things 
Sep 12 18:45:50 <saste>	Cigaes, cehoyos, will you be at VDD?
Sep 12 18:45:53 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: we do not need it, but it is simpler, no need for infrastructure, authentication, etc.
Sep 12 18:45:59 <reynaldo>	saste: when is vdd taking place ? next month?
Sep 12 18:46:01 <Cigaes>	saste: I will be there.
Sep 12 18:46:08 <Cigaes>	Next week.
Sep 12 18:46:09 <saste>	reynaldo, next weekend, in paris
Sep 12 18:46:53 <cehoyos>	saste: Yes
Sep 12 18:46:55 <reynaldo>	I wont, would have loved to but just moved :/
Sep 12 18:47:04 <reynaldo>	need to be here for my family
Sep 12 18:47:11 <saste>	cehoyos, good
Sep 12 18:47:18 <cehoyos>	You sure?
Sep 12 18:47:44 <saste>	BBB, yayoi, ubitux, nevcairiel should be there as well
Sep 12 18:47:51 <saste>	maybe llogan2?
Sep 12 18:47:51 <nevcairiel>	I am not
Sep 12 18:47:58 <saste>	nevcairiel, too bad
Sep 12 18:48:17 <yayoi>	i am really broke..i would love to meet your guys though.. 
Sep 12 18:48:24 <saste>	anyway, if there is nothing to discuss here then we can move to the next point
Sep 12 18:48:35 <reynaldo>	yayoi: where are you based?
Sep 12 18:48:41 <yayoi>	san francisco...
Sep 12 18:48:42 *	Sulik (4cfe4741 at gateway/web/freenode/ip.76.254.71.65) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 18:48:44 <saste>	yayoi, I believed you was going to attend, i was confused
Sep 12 18:48:57 <reynaldo>	yayoi: im in san jose, you can sure meet me ;)
Sep 12 18:49:04 <yayoi>	let's do that :)
Sep 12 18:49:10 <reynaldo>	sure
Sep 12 18:49:17 <llogan2>	saste: unfortunately, i won't be there.
Sep 12 18:49:21 <saste>	yayoi, Videolan foundation is going to refund travel and pay for hosting
Sep 12 18:49:31 <saste>	the only thing is that you need to register in time
Sep 12 18:49:37 <reynaldo>	yeah, thats an option ^
Sep 12 18:49:46 <yayoi>	well i asked VVD to fund me at registration.. for my air..but no answer.. so..
Sep 12 18:49:53 <yayoi>	sorry VDD
Sep 12 18:50:02 <saste>	yayoi, mmh OK :-(
Sep 12 18:50:04 <yayoi>	oh i see
Sep 12 18:50:10 *	am_ (ca4fcb63 at gateway/web/freenode/ip.202.79.203.99) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Sep 12 18:50:11 <saste>	ok, let's move on to the next topic
Sep 12 18:50:12 <yayoi>	it must be too late then
Sep 12 18:50:49 <Cigaes>	saste: if "next" is "4 outreachy", could we expedite 5 first?
Sep 12 18:51:02 <saste>	Cigaes, allright, anyone against it?
Sep 12 18:51:08 <nevcairiel>	I assume we delegate #1 to the commitee now?
Sep 12 18:51:21 <saste>	nevcariel: yes
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:51:29 <saste>	next topic: use of Github/Gitorious for pull requests
Sep 12 18:51:37 <reynaldo>	not really an issue, just thought about pointing it out ^
Sep 12 18:51:56 <saste>	well, gitorious is dead, so this is only about github
Sep 12 18:52:11 <reynaldo>	saste: I'd say no but isnt this something that should be handled by the voters comitee ?
Sep 12 18:52:15 <saste>	I think this could be decided by the voting committee as well
Sep 12 18:52:17 <saste>	reynaldo, indeed
Sep 12 18:52:19 <reynaldo>	yes
Sep 12 18:52:32 <Cigaes>	For myself, I would very much prefer that all patches arrive on the mailing list as such.
Sep 12 18:52:38 <saste>	i'm also against github pull requests, if they are not backed by mailing-list patches
Sep 12 18:52:54 <saste>	anyone in favour of github pull requests?
Sep 12 18:53:10 <cehoyos>	Sorry, but afaict nobody from inside FFmpeg supports github pull requests, so there will be no voting necessary.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:53:22 <ubitux>	i like the ml exclusivity as well, in particular for archival purposes
Sep 12 18:53:23 <atomnuker>	I agree about mailing list only patches
Sep 12 18:53:27 <reynaldo>	+1
Sep 12 18:53:34 <saste>	well, at least here we seem to agree
Sep 12 18:53:37 *	Sulik has quit (Quit: Page closed)
Sep 12 18:54:00 <saste>	if we have no more comments we can proceed to the next point
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:54:10 <jamrial>	someone mentioned adding a line to readme.md (which is shown on github) to let people know we don't accept pull requests
Sep 12 18:54:24 <reynaldo>	cehoyos: I wouldnt forgive that, no
Sep 12 18:54:34 <reynaldo>	just say that it sends the wrong message
Sep 12 18:54:37 <cehoyos>	Well, that is the only question...
Sep 12 18:54:45 <reynaldo>	but maybe a change is just too good to let it slip, who knows
Sep 12 18:55:03 <reynaldo>	jamrial: yes, that'd be a good idea
Sep 12 18:55:05 <reynaldo>	wana do it?
Sep 12 18:55:08 <cehoyos>	Sorry, I thought you were joking: Yes, this does happen
Sep 12 18:55:08 <llogan2>	i wish there was a way to disable it in github, but i don't think there is
Sep 12 18:55:23 <saste>	maintainers are free to handle their pull requests as they will, I think
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:55:33 <reynaldo>	saste: +1
Sep 12 18:55:43 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: if a merge request is too good to let it pass, send it to the mailing-list.
Sep 12 18:55:44 <saste>	but we shouldn't advertise that method, since it doesn't work for most changes
Sep 12 18:55:46 <ubitux>	saste: depends if we allow merge commits outside the libav scope
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:56:02 <Cigaes>	jamrial: git send-email or git format-patch correctly attached.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:56:09 <jamrial>	yeah
Sep 12 18:56:25 <ubitux>	i really don't like the idea of loosing discussion about a patchset
Sep 12 18:56:33 <ubitux>	even if the maintainer didn't care about it at that time
Sep 12 18:56:35 <iive>	+1 git format-patch
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:56:58 <llogan2>	nevcairiel: what client?
Sep 12 18:57:06 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: I do not understand, format-patch is just the same thing as send-email done manually.
Sep 12 18:57:18 <jamrial>	nevcairiel: afaik most clients let you "quote" the text you select
Sep 12 18:57:42 <reynaldo>	yeah, thats a MUA issue, not a development issue
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:57:50 <reynaldo>	lets not deviate though
Sep 12 18:58:13 <reynaldo>	do you guys have anything to discuss right now that the voting comitee should not be handling?
Sep 12 18:58:22 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: this can be fixed on client side, let us discuss it later.
Sep 12 18:58:31 <saste>	next point?
Sep 12 18:58:44 <reynaldo>	a brief on publishing the list of voters
Sep 12 18:58:49 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: let us not vote when we can agree.
Sep 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
Sep 12 18:59:14 <reynaldo>	was this what we agreed on ?
Sep 12 18:59:17 <reynaldo>	just confirming
Sep 12 18:59:46 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: ??? what am I supposed to do?
Sep 12 19:00:06 <saste>	reynaldo, i will publish the list to ffmpeg-devel
Sep 12 19:00:13 <reynaldo>	maybe Im wrong, give me just one sec to take a look at my backlog
Sep 12 19:00:16 <reynaldo>	saste: wprks
Sep 12 19:00:19 <reynaldo>	works/
Sep 12 19:00:37 <saste>	allright, should we move to the next point?
Sep 12 19:00:45 <saste>	which is: Outreachy funding for the next round (winter 2015)
Sep 12 19:00:45 <llogan2>	sure
Sep 12 19:00:54 <reynaldo>	just need to figure out who is providing the script saste
Sep 12 19:01:00 <reynaldo>	so you can have a list by monday
Sep 12 19:01:04 <reynaldo>	anyone volunteers ?
Sep 12 19:01:11 <reynaldo>	ubitux ^ ?
Sep 12 19:01:23 <Cigaes>	reynaldo: someone who voted B :-Þ
Sep 12 19:01:28 <ubitux>	not really :(
Sep 12 19:01:42 <reynaldo>	ok. I will
Sep 12 19:01:48 <llogan2>	yayoi 'n lglinskih: ping. we are now attempting to talk about Outreachy funding.
Sep 12 19:01:59 <yayoi>	yes
Sep 12 19:02:05 <yayoi>	i have a lot of questions actually
Sep 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.
Sep 12 19:02:34 <yayoi>	yeah outreachy is asking for 5 hours a week commitment for mentoring...
Sep 12 19:02:38 <saste>	yes, the first question is if we have any volunteering mentor
Sep 12 19:02:45 <saste>	then we can seek for the funding
Sep 12 19:02:50 <saste>	or use part of our money
Sep 12 19:02:51 <yayoi>	make sense
Sep 12 19:03:43 <michaelni>	saste, i might volunteer to mentor 1 applicant maybe, depends on applicants ad exact projects ...
Sep 12 19:03:46 <saste>	which is about 8.5 K$ and 9.125 K€
Sep 12 19:03:56 <reynaldo>	saste: maybe we can start workingon an ideas page and proceed from there
Sep 12 19:04:02 <saste>	reynaldo, ok
Sep 12 19:04:16 <saste>	how much time do we have to apply?
Sep 12 19:04:28 <reynaldo>	not sure
Sep 12 19:04:37 <reynaldo>	but thats usually a bit flexible for us
Sep 12 19:04:42 <llogan2>	reynaldo: do you think samsung would be interested in funding or partial funding again?
Sep 12 19:04:43 <yayoi>	i am not sure for participants org
Sep 12 19:04:45 <reynaldo>	we are in good terms with the org
Sep 12 19:05:00 <reynaldo>	llogan2: yes, I think and hope so. ust have to confirm
Sep 12 19:05:04 <reynaldo>	just/
Sep 12 19:05:06 <yayoi>	it was not very clear as far as reading their website..
Sep 12 19:05:33 <reynaldo>	their website is never too clear tbh
Sep 12 19:05:37 <yayoi>	i see
Sep 12 19:05:39 <llogan2>	i'll try to do a better job at mentioning the funding organizations.
Sep 12 19:05:49 <yayoi>	but you can start accepting applicants.. end of the sep? 
Sep 12 19:06:04 <yayoi>	well i can ask them
Sep 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
Sep 12 19:06:26 <yayoi>	well if they sponsor one intern, their deadline is Nov2.
Sep 12 19:06:31 <yayoi>	i mean for us
Sep 12 19:06:46 <llogan2>	reynaldo: ok. and maybe a summary of what was achieved.
Sep 12 19:07:05 <saste>	BTW, at the moment only me and michaelni are deciding how to use the project fund
Sep 12 19:07:08 <reynaldo>	yeah, that was the idea
Sep 12 19:07:18 <reynaldo>	saste: and I think you guys rock at that
Sep 12 19:07:22 <saste>	this should probably change once we have a voting committee
Sep 12 19:07:32 <reynaldo>	yes, it might
Sep 12 19:07:37 <reynaldo>	but Im happy with you guys doing it
Sep 12 19:07:43 <llogan2>	saste: can we afford a student if we don't get funding?
Sep 12 19:07:47 <reynaldo>	havent seen ppl arguing about it at least
Sep 12 19:08:13 <saste>	llogan2, we have the money, so we can
Sep 12 19:08:30 <saste>	llogan2, the question is how much money to use from our general fund
Sep 12 19:08:35 <reynaldo>	guys do we have any other pressing issue to discuss? I'd like to leave now
Sep 12 19:08:41 <reynaldo>	family weekend and stuff
Sep 12 19:08:44 <saste>	at the moment this is the situation:
Sep 12 19:08:58 <saste>	FFmpeg SPI general fund: 8446.80 $
Sep 12 19:08:59 <michaelni>	saste, its the people on the ML deciding on funds really in theory IIRC what we agreed on
Sep 12 19:09:12 <saste>	FFmpeg SPI OPW fund: 23.40
Sep 12 19:09:31 <saste>	FFmpeg ffis fund: 9125 € 
Sep 12 19:09:50 <reynaldo>	ok, leaving. Glad we made some desicions & happy to help. see you guys around o.
Sep 12 19:09:53 <reynaldo>	o/
Sep 12 19:09:55 <saste>	michaelni, yes, in practice in case there is no consensus we need to both agree
Sep 12 19:10:13 <saste>	reynaldo, see you, thanks
Sep 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
Sep 12 19:10:28 <michaelni>	reynaldo, have fun!
Sep 12 19:10:34 <yayoi>	sure
Sep 12 19:10:35 <reynaldo>	saste: will ping you when the script is ready
Sep 12 19:10:38 <reynaldo>	thank guys
Sep 12 19:10:39 <reynaldo>	bye bye
Sep 12 19:10:56 <yayoi>	bye see you in san jose :)
Sep 12 19:11:09 <saste>	should we move on to the next topic?
Sep 12 19:11:22 <saste>	yayoi, anything else to say/comment about?
Sep 12 19:11:30 <yayoi>	not at this moment
Sep 12 19:11:45 <yayoi>	i like to know how many will be a mentor and fund needs to be raiseed or not
Sep 12 19:12:00 <llogan2>	we could always use funds.
Sep 12 19:12:06 <saste>	yayoi, at least we have a mentor, michaelni
Sep 12 19:12:07 <yayoi>	true
Sep 12 19:12:16 <yayoi>	but my question is mostly logistics
Sep 12 19:12:26 <saste>	michaelni, do you agree to use our money if we don't find a sponsor or a partial sponsor?
Sep 12 19:12:35 <yayoi>	like bank account and etc...
Sep 12 19:12:44 <yayoi>	also contact list would be nice..
Sep 12 19:12:59 <michaelni>	saste, no objection from me but i would prefer to find a sponsor
Sep 12 19:13:09 <saste>	michaelni, same for me
Sep 12 19:13:14 <llogan2>	yayoi: a sponsor contact list? I don't think we have one.
Sep 12 19:13:18 <yayoi>	oh
Sep 12 19:13:28 <yayoi>	okay how you get donation usually?
Sep 12 19:13:32 <saste>	so let's try to find a sponsor to cover at least part of the expense
Sep 12 19:13:53 <saste>	yayoi, http://ffmpeg.org/donations.html
Sep 12 19:14:05 <saste>	or we contact sponsors directly, like in the case of samsung
Sep 12 19:14:10 <yayoi>	right
Sep 12 19:14:18 <yayoi>	but don't they give you their contact information though?
Sep 12 19:14:32 <yayoi>	like at the end of the year,,, i assume they want their tax document etc??
Sep 12 19:14:35 <saste>	yayoi, ask reynaldo, he was dealing with that
Sep 12 19:14:41 <yayoi>	oh okay
Sep 12 19:14:46 <yayoi>	i will 
Sep 12 19:15:09 *	am_ has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
Sep 12 19:15:14 <saste>	next point is: any other business
Sep 12 19:15:24 <llogan2>	yayoi: we will also make a news entry, tweets, etc.
Sep 12 19:15:35 <yayoi>	nice
Sep 12 19:15:41 <llogan2>	begg...asking for monies
Sep 12 19:15:42 <saste>	about the use of the money: it's something we should handle once we have a decision system
Sep 12 19:15:42 <yayoi>	are you going to update the website?
Sep 12 19:16:04 <saste>	possibly if we go with a committee that should be decided by the committee
Sep 12 19:16:07 <llogan2>	yeah, unless i forget or get lazy
Sep 12 19:16:20 <yayoi>	haha
Sep 12 19:16:33 *	reynaldo has quit (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
Sep 12 19:17:14 <llogan2>	actually, i just thought of a local organization i could ask. i know the director personally.
Sep 12 19:17:23 <yayoi>	nice
Sep 12 19:17:45 <durandal_1707>	can we talk about lavfi limitations?
Sep 12 19:18:12 <yayoi>	well please let me know if you
This FFmeeting was hosted on ​​irc://irc.freenode.net/ffmpeg-meeting2016 on 2016-05-28, at 17 UTC.

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat May 28 18:51:04 2016

May 28 18:51:04 *	Now talking on #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:51:21 *	durandal_1707 (~durandal@m83-184-22-75.cust.tele2.hr) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:51:34 *	jamrial (~jamrial@181.22.62.26) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:51:49 *	durandal_170 gives channel operator status to durandal_1707
May 28 18:52:22 *	BBB (~rbultje@65.206.95.146) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:52:48 *	mateo` (~mateo@static-5-51-29-67.ftth.abo.bbox.fr) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:53:35 *	cehoyos (~cehoyos@80-110-89-243.cgn.dynamic.surfer.at) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:53:36 *	ubitux (~ubitux@bre75-1-78-192-242-8.fbxo.proxad.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:54:55 *	c_14 (~c_14@unaffiliated/c-14/x-8913907) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:55:10 *	saste (~saste___@151.56.85.76) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:57:41 *	kurosu_ (020d4d7f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.2.13.77.127) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:58:06 *	iive (~iive@unaffiliated/iive) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 18:59:53 *	nevcairiel (nev@WoWUIDev/WoWAce/Ace3/nevcairiel) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:00:24 <durandal_170>	we will start at at 17:15 UTC
May 28 19:03:11 *	Timothy_Gu (~timothy_g@wikipedia/timothy-gu) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:03:45 *	kurosu (020d4d7f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.2.13.77.127) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:03:48 *	j-b (~jb@videolan/developer/j-b) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:04:09 *	kurosu_ has quit ()
May 28 19:04:43 <durandal_170>	so lets start
May 28 19:04:46 <durandal_170>	first topic: Code of Conduct and policy around it
May 28 19:04:52 <BBB>	yes
May 28 19:05:29 <jamrial>	the "first version" was voted and commited, so that's done
May 28 19:06:01 <durandal_170>	michaelni commited first version, should it be extended and other stuff added to it?
May 28 19:06:09 <Timothy_Gu>	I still maintain that some solid repercussions should be specified in the CoC. The ML root idea is good, but it should be written as a reference for future.
May 28 19:06:27 <BBB>	the VLC one is useful for reference
May 28 19:06:56 <Timothy_Gu>	We don't have to go as solid as "this --> 1 day ban; that --> 2-day ban" but it should be clear what could happen
May 28 19:06:56 <jamrial>	atomnuker was against adding that, afaik
May 28 19:07:19 <jamrial>	i also think it should be added
May 28 19:07:32 <jamrial>	BBB where's vlc's?
May 28 19:07:54 <BBB>	https://wiki.videolan.org/Code_of_Conduct/
May 28 19:09:30 <Timothy_Gu>	This clause doesn't go against the assumption of good faith, as atomnuker seems to suggest. It's more for the clarity of the entire community, to show that our community is a mature one governed by a set of clear rules.
May 28 19:09:51 <kurosu>	I'm also for adding some - in spite of the issues that were raised
May 28 19:10:29 <durandal_170>	like one VLC have or more rigid?
May 28 19:11:27 <atomnuker>	I dislike the notion that very well defined rules and (especially ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES) are needed to maintain order or say a community is "mature"
May 28 19:11:41 *	DSM_ (~textual@150.129.198.154) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:12:10 <nevcairiel>	we would all be happy if its never invoked, but alas we're here because precedence exists that we need it
May 28 19:12:15 <atomnuker>	I think that defining some rules is okay, as long as they're not set in stone and are debateable
May 28 19:12:25 <iive>	nevcairiel: and what is that precedence?
May 28 19:12:29 <BBB>	atomnuker: “NB: Before applying any of those following disciplinary policies, the VideoLAN team will try to discuss the problem with the offender in order to solve it in a more peaceful way.”
May 28 19:12:39 <BBB>	atomnuker: from the VLC CoC “disciplinary actions"
May 28 19:12:49 <atomnuker>	yeah, that's okay
May 28 19:12:50 <kurosu>	VLC's, in my interpretation, is for issues caused by situations going out of control, so it looks fine
May 28 19:13:23 <BBB>	has anyone here read the book “animal farm”? it’s so appropriate in this situation :-p </side-note>
May 28 19:14:47 <durandal_170>	so should we vote for adding basic clear rules?
May 28 19:14:55 <jamrial>	vlc's seems a tad explicit, so lets not copy paste it
May 28 19:15:02 <BBB>	jamrial: agreed
May 28 19:15:08 <saste>	what's the process to approve the rules? we need to go through vote on MLs or here on IRC?
May 28 19:15:29 <jamrial>	i'd say ML since some people in the voting comitee are not here, i think
May 28 19:15:40 <BBB>	who will write the changes?
May 28 19:15:42 <kurosu>	I'd suggest ML as IRC could be considered not to reach a quorum (whatever the spelling)
May 28 19:16:03 <atomnuker>	yep, better to define them now and just put them on the ML
May 28 19:16:14 <iive>	I still would like explanation, why do we need that
May 28 19:17:06 <durandal_170>	without it there are no consequences to bad habits
May 28 19:17:57 <iive>	like?
May 28 19:17:59 <jamrial>	iive: we now have a CoC, so there needs to be a list of what happens if you don't follow it
May 28 19:18:48 <BBB>	so action points: who will write the changes to the CoC for disciplinary actions on CoC violations?
May 28 19:20:07 <durandal_170>	I can
May 28 19:20:25 <durandal_170>	ok, so lets add something like: first warning then temporal ban then perma ban?
May 28 19:20:27 <iive>	I think that most of you do not understand what CoC is for. atomnuker had explained it quite well.
May 28 19:20:37 <iive>	but i do suspect that you do not care.
May 28 19:20:45 *	kurosu_ (020d4d7f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.2.13.77.127) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:20:55 <iive>	You do not want CoC, you just want laws and enforcement.
May 28 19:21:22 <BBB>	iive: “NB: Before applying any of those following disciplinary policies, the VideoLAN team will try to discuss the problem with the offender in order to solve it in a more peaceful way.”
May 28 19:21:28 <BBB>	iive: from the videolan CoC page
May 28 19:22:49 <iive>	BBB: 1. You are proposing to literally replace the current CoC with VideoLans. 2. Why don't we do that now, instead of complicating our lifes with none-sense?
May 28 19:23:00 <Timothy_Gu>	1. No.
May 28 19:23:07 *	Compn (notabot@97-71-16-25.res.bhn.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:23:16 <Timothy_Gu>	2. In case you didn't notice, atomnuker approved this clause.
May 28 19:24:08 <saste>	about the consequences can you (durandal?) be more specific? I think it was about banning from the ML for some time
May 28 19:24:31 <saste>	having some simple rules should be better than nothing (as it happens now)
May 28 19:24:44 <durandal_170>	first warning, then 7 days ban than permanent ban
May 28 19:25:14 <saste>	and it will be operated by the ML admins?
May 28 19:25:44 <atomnuker>	what about time(x) = 4^(times_warned)?
May 28 19:25:59 <jamrial>	mind, seven day ban should not be for silly stuff like top posting unless the requests are constantly ignored
May 28 19:26:14 *	iive facepalms
May 28 19:26:16 <durandal_170>	it is hard to enforce it on internet for real, but yes it would be ban on IRC and ML
May 28 19:26:26 <Timothy_Gu>	Git push access?
May 28 19:26:32 <durandal_170>	and no its not about top-posting or bottom-posting
May 28 19:26:53 <durandal_170>	Timothy_Gu: yes
May 28 19:27:02 <kurosu_>	Yes 3 strikes for a permanent ban seems heavy handed depending on the topic
May 28 19:27:14 <atomnuker>	yeah, I think the time should be a function of time, not pernament
May 28 19:27:24 <jamrial>	three strikes sounds extreme
May 28 19:27:40 <atomnuker>	64 days for 3 offences seems fine with 4^times_warned
May 28 19:27:46 <Timothy_Gu>	I'd be happy with "If the Contributor repeatedly, intentionally, and severly violates this Code of Conduct, possible repercussions include ..."
May 28 19:28:04 <durandal_170>	agree
May 28 19:28:06 <Timothy_Gu>	I don't want to get too formulaic about such things.
May 28 19:28:14 <atomnuker>	yeah, that too
May 28 19:29:06 <durandal_170>	so lets add that to current CoC and put it for vote on ML?
May 28 19:29:12 <atomnuker>	"possible reprocussions include temporary or pernament ban on ML/IRC"
May 28 19:29:40 <jamrial>	durandal_1707: send a draft first and get comments to improve it
May 28 19:30:09 <durandal_170>	will do, if noone beats me
May 28 19:30:26 <kurosu_>	Yeah this would be more appropriate else time will run short for this meeting
May 28 19:31:08 <durandal_170>	ok, next topic?
May 28 19:31:32 <Timothy_Gu>	"technical development issues"
May 28 19:31:51 <Timothy_Gu>	so AVClass et al.
May 28 19:32:27 <durandal_170>	isn't this topic about recent git server outage?
May 28 19:32:58 <jamrial>	since cehoyos is here, we could maybe talk about his behavior and why the CoC and repercussions for violating it was introduced to begin with
May 28 19:33:39 <durandal_170>	i have nothing new to add, everything have already been said on ML
May 28 19:34:05 <jamrial>	where?
May 28 19:34:28 <iive>	nothing's been said on ML
May 28 19:34:35 <iive>	nobody wants to start flamewar
May 28 19:35:11 <durandal_170>	i can talk about that later, now should we vote for AVClass thing or?
May 28 19:35:26 <atomnuker>	on that topic, there's a good reason why we have stable releases and a git master - git master can be broken at any point and then be fixed so that we don't break the stable version
May 28 19:35:41 <BBB>	is this about michaelni’s idea of adding an AVClass to AVCodecParameters?
May 28 19:35:47 <jamrial>	durandal_1707: some context about the avclass issue first would be good
May 28 19:36:35 <durandal_170>	i'm not really into it, michaelni could better describe it why (if) it's needed
May 28 19:37:10 <durandal_170>	iirc its about exporting codec info from lavf, right?
May 28 19:38:00 <michaelni>	AVClass & AVOption should be added to all public "Context" structs for API consistency and to make it easier for apps to support multiple ffmpeg versios and distros 
May 28 19:38:08 <michaelni>	that is IMHO
May 28 19:38:17 <durandal_170>	basically few devs are against it iirc
May 28 19:38:47 <michaelni>	nevcairiel, seemed to be unhappy about adding it to AVCodecParameters
May 28 19:39:38 <durandal_170>	I would prefer it there is better solution
May 28 19:41:21 <kurosu_>	Side note: the name is confusing because I would have assumed from the name it was ok
May 28 19:41:39 <nevcairiel>	I see it as a necessity for contexts that have private options in internal data somewhere, not as a really good API for generic access, which loses strict typing that structs give you, you can't typo a struct member name because the compiler yells at you .. you can in avoption, etc.
May 28 19:41:42 <kurosu_>	(to put such an information there)
May 28 19:42:04 <michaelni>	maybe the problems AVOptions have can be fixed
May 28 19:43:06 <Timothy_Gu>	Are members of AVCodecParameters supposed to be changeable by a consumer?
May 28 19:43:13 <Timothy_Gu>	consumer = user app
May 28 19:43:32 <michaelni>	a user app using only libavcodec or only libavformat has to change them
May 28 19:43:42 <nevcairiel>	if you just use lavf and lavc, there is no reason to change them really, but you could fill it manually if you use another demuxer
May 28 19:44:01 <nevcairiel>	or another mxuer for
May 28 19:44:33 <nevcairiel>	but you dont need AVOptions to fill the struct
May 28 19:44:45 <nevcairiel>	for me, the downsides outweigh the potential benefits, thats all
May 28 19:45:56 <Timothy_Gu>	Do we care about ABI with Libav? No, right?
May 28 19:46:03 <BBB>	no
May 28 19:46:06 *	kurosu has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
May 28 19:46:06 <nevcairiel>	we got rid of that last meeting
May 28 19:46:55 <michaelni>	what downsides does having support for AVClass/AVOption have ? its completely optional, a user app can just directly access the struct, it just will have to update more often and if it wants tp support stable distros it would need alot of #if which with AVOptions should be alot cleaner
May 28 19:48:25 <michaelni>	for example if we change sample_rate to a AVRational. With AVOptions an app can use the same code to set sample rate from an AVRational for new and old code
May 28 19:48:42 <michaelni>	without AVOption a #if VERSION.. is needed
May 28 19:48:58 <iive>	so, basically avclass would allow to use options, instead of get/set_ functions?
May 28 19:49:14 <nevcairiel>	I would absolutely  favor the explicit #if myself, that way I know wtf is going on :)
May 28 19:49:45 <michaelni>	me too until there are 20 such #ifs then i dont know anything anymore
May 28 19:50:21 <michaelni>	AVOption gives an app this choice it doesnt need to be used
May 28 19:50:31 *	kurosu (020d4d7f@gateway/web/freenode/ip.2.13.77.127) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:51:27 <michaelni>	about type checking named constants could be added like #define SAMPLE_RATE_KEY "sample_rate"
May 28 19:51:34 <BBB>	so … we’re currently just rehashing the ML discussion
May 28 19:51:37 <BBB>	this isn’t reall helping
May 28 19:51:50 <BBB>	there’s disagreement, that much is clear
May 28 19:52:01 <jamrial>	iive: afaik get/set were added because of libav's abi compatability, since new fields added by us would not have a known offset
May 28 19:52:52 <iive>	jamrial: yes, but same thing applies if we want to add or remove a member.
May 28 19:53:37 <Timothy_Gu>	So is this debate between AVClass/AVOptions vs. explicit getters and setters?
May 28 19:53:45 <BBB>	no
May 28 19:53:47 <nevcairiel>	no, dont let iive derail it
May 28 19:53:49 <saste>	also, with AVOption there's the possibility to some (very limited) introspection, like listing options and exporting them to a GUI/UI
May 28 19:54:13 <michaelni>	saste, yes, also theres max/min and defaults
May 28 19:54:36 <BBB>	my issue with avoption is that the introspection isn’t very useful, because you just list all options even though only a very small subset are useful or even set per use case
May 28 19:54:53 <Timothy_Gu>	Plus, AVCodecParameters isn't really intended to be such a end user-accessible structure though.
May 28 19:54:57 <BBB>	imagine AVCodecContext’s introspection - priv options made it a little better, but it’s still criminal
May 28 19:55:18 <kurosu_>	Agreed with BBB: if a technical agreement can't be reached here or the ml, a way forward must be found 
May 28 19:55:24 <michaelni>	BBB this is a implementation problem, we could do codec specific AVOption lists
May 28 19:55:46 <kurosu_>	No point in an infinite loop only broke by who gets fed up first
May 28 19:55:51 <nevcairiel>	introspection and options m ight be useful on the actual AVCodecContext, especially with private codec options, but that argument falls off quickly as you get to the other structs
May 28 19:55:58 <BBB>	kurosu_: so true :)
May 28 19:56:29 <michaelni>	kurosu_, yes we need to know AVOption/AVClass in AVCodecParameters yes or no for the release
May 28 19:56:29 <BBB>	so, I don’t think we have consensus that AVClass should be added to AVCodecParameters at this point. so how are we going to continue this discussion?
May 28 19:56:50 *	DSM_ has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
May 28 19:58:12 <durandal_170>	hmm, I'm out of ideas.
May 28 19:58:26 *	baptiste (~baptiste@fate.ffmpeg.org) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 19:58:38 <baptiste>	heya
May 28 19:59:06 <durandal_170>	hi
May 28 19:59:08 <kurosu_>	I'm ok of if there's a vote, possibly restricted to people with commits in affected parts of the code in the last x units of time
May 28 19:59:13 <nevcairiel>	if everyone else is in favor of adding it there, then just do so, its not like it actively hurts me or my interests, but I just don't like the concept
May 28 19:59:32 <ubitux>	well the question asking if there is a downside to adding it hasn't been answered (unless i missed it); if we add it, does it promote bad usage? does it cause a maintainance burden? 
May 28 19:59:44 <atomnuker>	is there even anyone who agrees with michaelni to add AVClass?
May 28 19:59:50 *	jamrial_ (~jamrial@181.22.62.26) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 20:00:01 <atomnuker>	most of the people on the ML disagreed
May 28 20:00:03 <nevcairiel>	if you want it to be complete, you need to maintain the struct twice, once in the header, and once in its AVOption declaration
May 28 20:00:16 <nevcairiel>	so there is a bit of maintenance
May 28 20:00:28 <michaelni>	iam happy to maintain the extra code
May 28 20:00:35 <jamrial_>	offtopic, but fuck win10 wireless
May 28 20:00:39 <durandal_170>	we could drop header support ;)
May 28 20:00:58 <iive>	i thought that's the end goal.
May 28 20:01:27 <nevcairiel>	if it is, i'm outta here =p
May 28 20:02:03 *	jamrial has quit (Ping timeout: 260 seconds)
May 28 20:02:10 <durandal_170>	ok, we can put this on vote for ML if michaelni really wants this
May 28 20:02:15 <nevcairiel>	making AVOptions the only way to access things was never the goal, and if anyone should ever want to bring that up, we would have quite the discussion =p
May 28 20:02:16 *	jamrial_ is now known as jamrial
May 28 20:02:45 <ubitux>	what about serializations of parameters and such? 
May 28 20:03:05 <michaelni>	nevcairiel, iam a C and asm guy really, i wont come up with such idea ...
May 28 20:03:28 <michaelni>	ubitux, yes, that too is a potential usecase
May 28 20:03:30 <nevcairiel>	didnt think you would
May 28 20:03:34 <ubitux>	i guess this enters again in the scope of api users not supposed to though (i feel like it could help wrt ffserver but i'm going to get killed)
May 28 20:03:44 <nevcairiel>	the danger is real
May 28 20:04:21 <ubitux>	but otoh adding the AVClass (without avoptions yet) before the release sounds like a safe bet
May 28 20:04:31 <jamrial>	let ffserver die after avstream->avctx is gone
May 28 20:04:32 <ubitux>	like, we could postpone such discussion
May 28 20:04:36 <Timothy_Gu>	We should rewrite FFmpeg in JavaScript. Built-in introspection.
May 28 20:04:51 <nevcairiel>	if the AVClass exists you might as well add the options, otherwise its just useless
May 28 20:05:20 <ubitux>	i'm with michaelni on the risky aspect of not having that pointer before the release, but i don't know yet if it will be helpful in the future
May 28 20:05:34 <ubitux>	nevcairiel: it's useless but it prevents the abi break later
May 28 20:05:56 <nevcairiel>	well we should just decide now then instead of going with a schrödingers avclass :)
May 28 20:06:01 <jamrial>	wm4 was trying to get libav to first implement the updated parser stuff before making a release. do we care?
May 28 20:06:03 <ubitux>	(of adding it if we decide to use avoption or any related "technology")
May 28 20:06:30 <nevcairiel>	jamrial: they decided not to though, so not sure what there is to care
May 28 20:06:39 <kurosu_>	I think only 2 persons called for a vote to settle this, so besides disagreeing with the concept of vote on this, does this mean I ot enough info is available to make an educated vote?te
May 28 20:06:40 <jamrial>	ah, i see
May 28 20:07:07 <kurosu_>	(sorry on phone :( )
May 28 20:07:11 <nevcairiel>	well apparently noone else really has any opinions on the matter
May 28 20:07:35 <kurosu_>	I consider I don't get to vote on that topic
May 28 20:07:35 <BBB>	I’m not convinced we need AVOptions at this point
May 28 20:07:44 <BBB>	if we don’t need AVOptions, I don’t think we need AVClass
May 28 20:07:52 <BBB>	(in AVCodecParameters)
May 28 20:08:15 <durandal_170>	yea, it opens cans of worms
May 28 20:08:17 <jamrial>	we also don't need log context in AVCodecParameters
May 28 20:08:18 <nevcairiel>	fwiw, i don't think its one of the structs that will change dramatically and all the time
May 28 20:08:28 <BBB>	avcodecParameters logging is useless
May 28 20:08:39 <BBB>	since the class is not codec-specific
May 28 20:08:45 <BBB>	so it would just log [parameters] bla bla
May 28 20:08:49 <BBB>	instead of [h264] bla bla
May 28 20:08:51 <BBB>	or [mov] bla bla
May 28 20:08:54 <nevcairiel>	and yes, everytime AVCodecParameters is handled you generally have some parent context it belongs to
May 28 20:08:58 <nevcairiel>	be it a  muxer or demuxer
May 28 20:09:00 <nevcairiel>	or something
May 28 20:09:06 <BBB>	so we should actively discourage using AVCodecParameters being used as the class for logging
May 28 20:09:16 <nevcairiel>	if you would try, it would likely crash
May 28 20:09:18 <ubitux>	BBB: i think logging has a mechanism to print the tree?
May 28 20:09:31 <ubitux>	sth like [h264 @ ...] [parameters @ ...] bla
May 28 20:09:37 <nevcairiel>	never seen that
May 28 20:09:49 <BBB>	I’ve never seen that either :-p certainly news to me
May 28 20:09:53 <ubitux>	i remember sth like that with swr but maybe i'm confused
May 28 20:09:53 <michaelni>	ubitux, yes it can print the parent too
May 28 20:09:54 <BBB>	(that’s not to say you’re not right)
May 28 20:11:02 <durandal_170>	ok, can we get back to this later?
May 28 20:11:16 <nevcairiel>	in any case, i don't really care that much if it gets in or not, my opinion is that its not really useful or needed
May 28 20:12:09 <jamrial>	on the ml if possible. a thread stating the potential benefits, drawbacks, concerns about misuse/confusion, etc, for discussion. then a vote in that same thread
May 28 20:14:09 <durandal_170>	sounds good to me
May 28 20:14:46 *	DSM_ (~textual@203.134.198.46) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 20:14:46 <kurosu>	btw, is a vote a codified way to move forward in the face of such a polarizing issue (or more)?
May 28 20:14:46 <michaelni>	if a vote is done it should be started by someone else than me & nevcairiel probabl, not sure if  a vote makes sense for technical issue it would give a yes vs no result though 
May 28 20:15:15 <michaelni>	and either yes or no is better than no result
May 28 20:16:04 <BBB>	anyone remotely interested in managing the vote probably has some stake in it either way
May 28 20:16:11 <BBB>	I think it’s fine for you to set up the vote
May 28 20:16:21 <BBB>	(since you want it so you have incentive to do effort for it)
May 28 20:17:32 <michaelni>	I dont understand the drawbacks and concerns about misuse/confusion so iam not able to write a neutral mail
May 28 20:18:26 <durandal_170>	then setup wiki and write drawbacks/etc there?
May 28 20:18:44 <jamrial>	lets not make things complicated
May 28 20:20:31 <jamrial>	may i suggest another technical topic?
May 28 20:20:39 <durandal_170>	yes
May 28 20:21:19 <jamrial>	liabvutil is currently the only non modular library. literally everything is compiled and installed no matter your configure options
May 28 20:21:33 <BBB>	I’ve complained about that 10000x
May 28 20:21:42 <jamrial>	yes, that's why i bring it up :p
May 28 20:21:42 <BBB>	but I think it lacks somebody actually fixing it :)
May 28 20:21:53 <nevcairiel>	i dont think thats necessarily a bad thing
May 28 20:22:09 <nevcairiel>	the modules in avcodec etc dont directly impact public api, they just disable some encoder or something
May 28 20:22:18 <jamrial>	i could give it a try if i have the time, but i want to know how to handle it
May 28 20:22:18 <nevcairiel>	but in avutil the modules practically map to public API functions
May 28 20:22:22 <jamrial>	nevcairiel: that's the thing
May 28 20:22:24 <nevcairiel>	which should still exist even if disabled
May 28 20:22:37 <jamrial>	what would be best? instlal all headers and return NULL/ENOSYS, or not install them?
May 28 20:22:43 <jamrial>	for the disabled modules, that is
May 28 20:22:53 <BBB>	I would just not install them
May 28 20:23:00 <BBB>	the use I have for it is in static libs
May 28 20:23:01 <nevcairiel>	well even if not installed, the ABI should be the same, imho
May 28 20:23:04 <BBB>	so I don’t care for placeholders
May 28 20:24:21 <jamrial>	well, opencl and lzo are headers that only get installed if those components are enabled
May 28 20:24:39 <jamrial>	so there's a precedent of sorts
May 28 20:25:39 <BBB>	I think it’s new territory
May 28 20:25:53 <BBB>	so there’s a reasonable defense for either strategy
May 28 20:26:06 <iive>	what would you like to disable from libavutil?
May 28 20:26:17 <nevcairiel>	shouldnt a decent linker get rid of your unused stuff in static libs anyway?
May 28 20:26:21 <ubitux>	if we end up moving various dsp utils inside lavu (because it needs to be shared between codecs and filters), it makes perfect sense to make lavu modular
May 28 20:26:27 <jamrial>	but at the same time, ubitux's pixelutils gets installed and just returns NULL if it's not enabled
May 28 20:26:42 <ubitux>	yeah, this was a first attempt at it
May 28 20:26:52 <jamrial>	iive: all the crypto stuff and such, for example
May 28 20:26:53 <ubitux>	but pretty annoying to do tbh
May 28 20:27:19 <jamrial>	you may only need md5, crc and aes, but not sha or camelia
May 28 20:28:06 <ubitux>	does anyone mind moving to infrastructure issues after that?
May 28 20:28:27 <ubitux>	i'm not sure i can stay for very long and i'm slightly concerned about that issue
May 28 20:28:35 <jamrial>	as a topic? sure
May 28 20:28:41 <ubitux>	yes
May 28 20:28:44 *	Illya (sid133335@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rfijfsjjprqfpkvu) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 20:29:06 <Illya>	Is this only for contributors or can I sit in and listen? 
May 28 20:29:46 <jamrial>	you're welcome to listen and participate
May 28 20:29:55 <durandal_170>	ubitux: so what you want to ask?
May 28 20:30:01 <BBB>	infrastructure, let’s go
May 28 20:30:19 <ubitux>	alright well
May 28 20:30:24 <ubitux>	first there is the dedicated server
May 28 20:30:32 <ubitux>	which i ordered a while ago as a "quick solution"
May 28 20:31:03 *	rcombs (rcombs@irc.rcombs.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 20:31:06 <ubitux>	it's not like i do really mind the money aspect, but there was many offers
May 28 20:31:19 <kurosu_>	Err what's the result on the previous topic? Send patches and it'll get reviewed but the end goal is ok? (I don't mind)
May 28 20:31:23 <ubitux>	and i'm still handling the server
May 28 20:31:45 <durandal_170>	ubitux: i thought that server is no longer used...
May 28 20:31:47 <BBB>	kurosu_: sounds like it yes
May 28 20:31:52 <ubitux>	durandal_170: ah?
May 28 20:31:57 <iive>	kurosu_: i think nobody objected. Try to make some example patches and we might find issues then :)
May 28 20:32:10 <ubitux>	so we don't use ffbox0 anymore?
May 28 20:32:15 <kurosu_>	Ok just wanted to make the result of the meeting on that topic clear
May 28 20:32:37 <durandal_170>	ubitux: i dunno, I never touched those stuff
May 28 20:32:54 <ubitux>	that's the other issue; we don't really have someone to handle the sysadmin stuff
May 28 20:33:01 <jamrial>	i think michaelni handled the server migration last time
May 28 20:33:14 <ubitux>	does anyone have a sysadmin in his relationships that would be interested in that?
May 28 20:33:15 <michaelni>	"<ubitux> it's not like i do really mind the money aspect, but there was many offers" <-- everyone disappeared except the one from bulgaria
May 28 20:33:28 <jamrial>	ubitux: wasn't it llogan?
May 28 20:34:09 <michaelni>	we have a virtual box in bulgaria that ffbox0 could be moved to if teres a volunteer
May 28 20:34:14 <ubitux>	well, i saw michael handling mailing issue recently, and we have regularly unsolved issue wrt the infrastructure
May 28 20:34:42 <michaelni>	trac is currently on a virtual box there too
May 28 20:35:00 <jamrial>	kierank offered a server as well i remember
May 28 20:35:02 <ubitux>	like, i still receive many unwanted dvdnav moderation mails, and no one seems to know how to stop them
May 28 20:35:22 <iive>	jamrial: trac was on kierank's server, until it died.
May 28 20:35:30 <ubitux>	i feel like michael has to handle all the dirty stuff everytime there is a problem
May 28 20:35:32 <iive>	the server
May 28 20:35:35 *	Shiz (~shiz@hydrogenium.shiz.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 20:35:36 <ubitux>	or even when we have to upload a sample etc
May 28 20:35:58 <ubitux>	i feel like we really need someone to officially handle the sysadmin stuff
May 28 20:36:07 <michaelni>	jamrial, kieranks server is now limited to 5mbit/sec
May 28 20:36:15 <ubitux>	so if anyone knows someone to help with that i think that would be a good idea
May 28 20:36:15 *	kierank (sid5955@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-chhjwqpzyyehmyvm) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 20:36:50 <BBB>	speaking of the devil :D
May 28 20:37:41 <michaelni>	it would be nice to have some help with sysadmin stuff
May 28 20:37:48 <durandal_170>	i'm really not into such stuff, so I can't do that
May 28 20:38:15 <BBB>	maybe lou is interested in that kind of stuff?
May 28 20:38:43 <durandal_170>	the only experience I have is some GUI web setup of mail server and http server and database ...
May 28 20:39:05 <BBB>	you shouldn’t feel obliged to do stuff you don’t want to do ;)
May 28 20:39:17 <michaelni>	about uploading samples anyone who needs/wants access to that its easy to give
May 28 20:39:22 *	DSM_ has quit (Max SendQ exceeded)
May 28 20:39:43 <jamrial>	michaelni: at least regarding samples write access could be given to people that often makes new tests
May 28 20:40:21 <jamrial>	or maybe to anyone that can git push
May 28 20:40:38 <iive>	can we hear what services are running on what server atm?
May 28 20:40:41 <durandal_170>	michaelni: iirc you gave me access but I don't remember what password was
May 28 20:40:43 <michaelni>	i need to setup account on the box so "anyone that can git push" is a bit hard
May 28 20:40:50 <jamrial>	ah ok
May 28 20:41:49 <ubitux>	pretty sure no one in the community is available for sysadmin stuff, we probably need someone who isn't a developer but more a sysadmin
May 28 20:42:00 <ubitux>	and i think they're not that rare
May 28 20:42:01 <michaelni>	having someone with mail / postfix experience and more free time than tim would be usefull
May 28 20:42:21 <ubitux>	we can probably ask around our close relationships
May 28 20:42:35 <michaelni>	that would be a good idea i think
May 28 20:42:36 <ubitux>	i mean, we need someone to trust
May 28 20:42:41 <michaelni>	yes
May 28 20:43:26 <ubitux>	so if you're working in a company and knows well a bored sysadmin who like opensource
May 28 20:43:31 <ubitux>	maybe hint him?
May 28 20:43:35 <BBB>	don’t we have various people in the project that don’t code?
May 28 20:43:47 <ubitux>	ppl that don't code seems as busy as us
May 28 20:43:56 <BBB>	iive doesn’t seem busy
May 28 20:43:58 <ubitux>	and don't seem to particularly have sysadmin stuff
May 28 20:44:04 <ubitux>	skills*
May 28 20:44:23 <ubitux>	we called many times for sysadmin support
May 28 20:44:31 <BBB>	iive: can you sysadmin?
May 28 20:44:32 <ubitux>	i think we need to look a bit outside this community
May 28 20:45:11 <iive>	BBB: no. 
May 28 20:45:56 <iive>	just to be clear. we are talking about moving the maillist to the bulgarian box?
May 28 20:46:15 <michaelni>	iive, i think we dont talk about anything specific
May 28 20:46:41 <michaelni>	also raz has already copied ffbox to bulgaria but its a few month old
May 28 20:46:47 <BBB>	I’m gonna run out for lunch, I’ll be back in a bit
May 28 20:47:38 <kurosu_>	I think we're discussing about asking people worthy of trust to do it. Why can't we do the same as for asking infrastructure ?
May 28 20:47:55 <ubitux>	just an overview about what kind of stuff we need: security updates, managing various accesses, improvements in various setups such as mail or bug trackers, help with synchronizing samples, ...
May 28 20:48:12 <ubitux>	and i'm probably forgetting many things as i'm not even helping a bit
May 28 20:48:20 <ubitux>	(except by paying the server)
May 28 20:48:28 <jamrial>	i also need to leave, but wont be back for a few hours so i'll miss the rest of the meeting
May 28 20:48:47 <ubitux>	i'm going afk pretty soon but i haven't much more to say
May 28 20:49:01 <ubitux>	that was just a desperate call so everyone is aware of the issue
May 28 20:49:10 *	jamrial has quit ()
May 28 20:49:47 <iive>	ubitux: what's the issue again?
May 28 20:50:25 <michaelni>	iive theres no real issue i think, it just would be nice to have some help with sysadmin
May 28 20:51:00 <durandal_170>	michaelni: is ubitux paid server used for web page?
May 28 20:51:10 <michaelni>	yes
May 28 20:51:33 <durandal_170>	hmm, why it was never transfered?
May 28 20:52:40 <kierank>	VLC have offered to sysadmin for years
May 28 20:53:03 <Compn>	we have to vote on vlc
May 28 20:53:09 <Compn>	before we were worried about takeover on vlc side
May 28 20:53:34 <Compn>	but now i think its ok for vlc to host..
May 28 20:54:27 <michaelni>	we have a dedicated server from ubitux and one in bulgaria and one from kieran
May 28 20:54:50 <Compn>	ok, just need admins ?
May 28 20:54:55 <Compn>	i think i offered to admin before
May 28 20:55:01 <Compn>	i put it on the table, my offer to admin again 
May 28 20:55:14 <ubitux>	we need someone to refer to for every sysadmin stuff
May 28 20:55:28 <michaelni>	Compn, you know postfix and stuff ?
May 28 20:55:40 <michaelni>	ubitux, root@ffmpeg.org probably
May 28 20:55:40 <ubitux>	like if there is an issue, we're always looking for someone for the skills and motivation
May 28 20:56:17 <michaelni>	theres also a dedicated server from baptiste, i almost forgot
May 28 20:56:30 <michaelni>	fate is on that one
May 28 20:56:56 <michaelni>	or i think its a dedicated server at least 
May 28 20:57:02 <Compn>	michaelni : no, but i'm fast learner :P
May 28 20:57:32 <ubitux>	mails are not a simple thing
May 28 20:57:38 <ubitux>	and it's kind of sensitive
May 28 20:57:48 <michaelni>	ubitux, yes :/ 
May 28 20:58:44 <michaelni>	we probably should config postfix or spamassasin to check DMARK/DKIM/SPF or part of that on incoming mai (not really important but i thn it doest curretly)
May 28 20:59:48 <michaelni>	also gmail will soon switch DMARK to reject like yahoo, we have 2 methods basically in place to deal with that a custom solution from tim ad malman itself
May 28 21:00:31 <michaelni>	tims solution would then traslate all gmail like yahoo to gmailemail@ffmpeg.org
May 28 21:00:56 <michaelni>	mailman would put the original gmail into CC and put ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org in from
May 28 21:01:16 <michaelni>	mailman is fully automatic, tims solution needs manual listig of affected servers
May 28 21:01:27 <michaelni>	or we hack mailman to do something else
May 28 21:01:50 <kurosu_>	That's a new item of work, but maybe not the biggest for the volunteer(s)?
May 28 21:02:13 <kurosu_>	Just to make sure people what the request is
May 28 21:02:21 <michaelni>	kurosu_, absolutely no big issue
May 28 21:02:35 <kurosu_>	*people understand what
May 28 21:04:03 <michaelni>	Compn, what server admin stuff yu know ?
May 28 21:05:03 <michaelni>	i mean any expereicene with apache config stuff, git? svn ? ftpd ?
May 28 21:05:19 <michaelni>	(that was a random list) 
May 28 21:05:58 <kurosu_>	Just list what you and the others mainly do?
May 28 21:06:00 <Compn>	just running home papache
May 28 21:06:09 <Compn>	stuff like that
May 28 21:06:16 <Compn>	er apache on my own home box, temporarily
May 28 21:06:17 <Compn>	nothing major
May 28 21:06:41 <Compn>	and on some other site
May 28 21:07:22 <Compn>	i just figured it would be easier to ask me to restart some service
May 28 21:07:23 <Compn>	than michael
May 28 21:07:28 <Compn>	but if not, nevermind
May 28 21:08:00 <durandal_170>	i would like to propose next topic: FFmpeg funding/donations
May 28 21:08:15 <michaelni>	kurosu_, apt-get update ;) occasionally creating an account, looking at why someones mail isnt where it shoud be, then seting up stuff that is needed like new mailman 
May 28 21:09:25 <michaelni>	kurosu_, rarely updating dns zone, uploading samples, rarely fixing permissions on samples, once every few month building new doxygen for a major release
May 28 21:10:09 *	durandal1170 (~computer@141-136-213-160.dsl.iskon.hr) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 21:10:18 <michaelni>	its not that much work when everythig works
May 28 21:10:40 <Shiz>	considering the quality of this sysadmin conversation it seems delegating it to VLC would be a wise decision
May 28 21:10:45 <Compn>	i'd rather ask michael what he wants 
May 28 21:11:07 <kurosu_>	Michaelni, I meant when asking volunteers :-) I'm personally not
May 28 21:12:27 *	durandal_170 has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
May 28 21:12:27 <michaelni>	yes, i know, but i dont know who to ask, so be listing it a but others could ask people
May 28 21:13:07 <saste>	michaelni, what's the implications of asking vlc to do sysadmin stuff? or in other words, why you never considered that option?
May 28 21:13:28 <kierank>	Paranoia of course
May 28 21:13:33 <saste>	i'm fine with either, but i'm not the one helping so my opinion doesn't matter, was just trying to understand
May 28 21:13:42 *	durandal_1707 gives channel operator status to durandal1170
May 28 21:15:24 <iive>	or we could move the whole project to github :P
May 28 21:16:26 <michaelni>	saste, we use dedicated servers and multiple virtual machines on the new bulgarian box, vlcs offer was to integrate some of our services into the existing vlc server IIRC
May 28 21:17:42 <michaelni>	its much more restrictive IIUC
May 28 21:18:02 <Illya>	So the different components are: ffmpeg.org website, mailing list, email, git, fate samples ftpd/rsync (have I missed any?). Which services would be integrated into vlc?
May 28 21:18:17 <michaelni>	theres also trac
May 28 21:19:34 <Compn>	[15:25] <kierank> Paranoia of course
May 28 21:19:36 <Compn>	sounds like insult
May 28 21:19:49 <cehoyos>	That's not correct.
May 28 21:21:03 <Compn>	code of conduct 
May 28 21:21:04 <Compn>	:P
May 28 21:21:35 *	Shiz (~shiz@hydrogenium.shiz.me) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016 ("-")
May 28 21:21:52 *	kurosu has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
May 28 21:22:30 <Illya>	iive: makes a good suggestion, GitHub would release at least two services (git and trac). For trac to GitHub you could look at something like: https://github.com/trustmaster/trac2github It also might make the project more accessible to new contributors 
May 28 21:22:43 <michaelni>	Compn, btw you should have the power to upload fate-samples and also normal samples
May 28 21:23:06 <michaelni>	you are in samples group
May 28 21:23:06 <Illya>	And GitHub is fairly reputable, if you're paranoid about that
May 28 21:23:08 <kierank>	michaelni: you are mistaken
May 28 21:23:45 <kierank>	But don't let that get in the way of VLC paranoia
May 28 21:24:32 <kurosu_>	Please.
May 28 21:24:47 <durandal1170>	well if nobody comes then VLC will be used
May 28 21:26:28 <durandal1170>	ok, can we get to next topic?
May 28 21:26:38 <michaelni>	durandal1170, ok with me
May 28 21:26:48 <durandal1170>	hopefully the last topic :)
May 28 21:27:04 <michaelni>	"<durandal1170> ok, can we get to next topic?"
May 28 21:27:33 <durandal1170>	its about FFmpeg funding/donations
May 28 21:28:07 <michaelni>	i want more funding/donations for FFmpeg, sadly thats probably all i can do here
May 28 21:28:21 <michaelni>	that is "wanting"
May 28 21:28:47 <durandal1170>	i want possibility to fund devs to work on specific part of FFmpeg
May 28 21:28:53 <michaelni>	+1
May 28 21:28:59 <iive>	what happened with FFmtech?
May 28 21:29:15 <saste>	this was discussed again and again, and we decided that there is nothing preventing us to do that
May 28 21:29:38 <saste>	at the moment we have a total of ~15K USD in the SPI and ffis.de funds
May 28 21:30:19 <saste>	OTOH we never asked to use money for that, since it was always only about refunding people for stuff and travel
May 28 21:30:35 <saste>	also I'm not sure what was the outcome of the last outreachy
May 28 21:30:58 <michaelni>	saste, can we fund someone maybe to make kierans fuzzing GSoC project a reality ? i mean if people agree to that 
May 28 21:31:02 <kierank>	There were no good students
May 28 21:31:59 <durandal1170>	so just need to pick some part of codebase that need refactoring/cleaning up/improving?
May 28 21:32:08 <durandal1170>	like rm demuxer
May 28 21:32:45 <durandal1170>	or swscale
May 28 21:33:47 <michaelni>	iam happy to help cleanup swscale but iam missing some motivation (not money, maybe rather other people joining in and working, i dont know)
May 28 21:35:28 *	saste has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
May 28 21:36:25 <durandal1170>	guess only left is to propose such thing like, sponsoring dev to for X
May 28 21:36:28 <kierank>	I would be able to fund a non crazy avfilter api
May 28 21:37:52 <durandal1170>	hmm, nicolas is working on some lavfi stuf, unrelated to that, and he is very busy
May 28 21:38:48 <durandal1170>	the main problem I see is what will Libav do if we develop such new API
May 28 21:39:27 <durandal1170>	i'm really interested in better lavfi API for various reasons
May 28 21:40:18 <durandal1170>	kierank: i guess end goal is to feed filters AVFrames directly?
May 28 21:40:29 <nevcairiel>	doesnt that happen today?
May 28 21:40:45 <durandal1170>	you have filtergraph...
May 28 21:40:52 <kierank>	Main goal is to not have weird buffering 
May 28 21:41:02 <nevcairiel>	an API that links filters together for a filtering chain is quite useful
May 28 21:41:04 <kierank>	i.e an API suitable for live as well as file
May 28 21:41:42 <nevcairiel>	things just get oddly complicated if you handle multiple un-synced inputs and shit like that
May 28 21:45:51 <durandal1170>	kierank: do you still have candidate for new lavfi API? 
May 28 21:47:32 <BBB>	are there any other subjects that come after this one?
May 28 21:48:05 *	saste (~saste___@151.56.107.16) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 21:48:37 <durandal1170>	BBB: any stuff you want to chat about...
May 28 21:49:17 <saste>	i was offline for a few minutes, did I miss any reply?
May 28 21:49:20 <BBB>	no I’m just surprised it’s still ongoing after 3 hrs
May 28 21:50:17 <kurosu_>	Yeah not efficient but that's not like people were not doing anything else
May 28 21:51:01 <BBB>	I agre with the several people above that we should re-consider VLC as sysadmin for our stuff
May 28 21:51:11 <BBB>	doing stuff oruselves really doesn’t make sense if we’re strained in manpower
May 28 21:51:31 <BBB>	is there anything concrete we’re going to do w.r.t. derek and carl?
May 28 21:51:57 <iive>	i think that last time when this was discussed, it was mentioned that they cannot admin all our services
May 28 21:52:53 <saste>	<saste> michaelni, before proposing that I'd check with SPI if that would be an issue
May 28 21:52:54 <saste>	<saste> what would be possible (indeed we already did it in the past) would be to sponsor an outreachy slot as we did in a past edition
May 28 21:52:54 <saste>	<saste> IIRC FFmpeg is not involved with the last round of outreachy, right?
May 28 21:52:54 <saste>	<saste> also, related to this, at the moment it is me and michaelni who approve the funding requests
May 28 21:52:54 <saste>	<saste> also I should report about the donations status (every six months) and I think I missed that in the last year
May 28 21:52:57 <saste>	<saste> when we decided the funding procedure it was agreed that it was going to be a temporary solution, but then we ended up with that setup since then (it was 2012)
May 28 21:53:00 <saste>	<saste> do you have any specific proposal / comment about funding and donations?
May 28 21:53:02 <saste>	<saste> then I think we should move on
May 28 21:53:04 <saste>	<saste> I can re-ask the SPI guys again to know if it is acceptable to use the fund for sponsoring development
May 28 21:53:07 <saste>	<saste> in the past years people also suggested fancier stuff like crowdfunding but nothing came out of that
May 28 21:53:14 <saste>	^^ this is what I wrote before realizing i was offline, sorry for the spam
May 28 21:54:30 *	durandal_170 (~computer@141-136-243-145.dsl.iskon.hr) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 21:54:54 <kurosu_>	Yeah the funding topic didn't seem to reach a conclusion/decision of what to do
May 28 21:55:25 <saste>	what we have now is bad, but better than nothing
May 28 21:55:53 <kurosu_>	Well you've proposed something to do, seems fine
May 28 21:55:56 <saste>	at least it helps with collecting money for sponsoring a bit of travelling
May 28 21:56:21 *	durandal1170 has quit (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
May 28 21:57:15 <kurosu_>	So, topic closed and "action points" noted?
May 28 21:57:48 <saste>	I think so
May 28 21:58:05 <durandal_170>	saste: I want to make it possible to fund work on FFmpeg part
May 28 21:58:24 <durandal_170>	notably rm demuxer improvements
May 28 21:59:08 <kurosu_>	Kierank mentioned btw he was willing to fund some work on libavfilter API that would suit his needs, the details of which he'll give to whomever is integrated 
May 28 21:59:15 <kurosu_>	*interested
May 28 21:59:25 <saste>	before asking that on the ML, let me check again with SPI, then we can use the usual procedure with the fund request on the ML
May 28 21:59:48 <saste>	ping me in a few days if you don't hear nothing from me
May 28 21:59:52 <kierank>	So Derek and carl?
May 28 22:00:25 <durandal_170>	I guess can't be done much, Derek left and carl is still here
May 28 22:00:49 <michaelni>	saste, if you get no reply from SPI then put them in a position in which they must reply
May 28 22:01:01 <saste>	michaelni, sure
May 28 22:02:07 <durandal_170>	for sure I'm ignoring carl diffs
May 28 22:02:24 <kurosu_>	Although the CoC and the repercussions are neither final nor voted, I'm for this to be acted upon
May 28 22:02:34 <durandal_170>	he already posted at least 1 proper patch so he is able to follow that....
May 28 22:02:43 <iive>	durandal_170: it's ok if you ignore them all together.
May 28 22:02:50 <kurosu_>	It shouldn't even been allowed to reach this point without intervention
May 28 22:02:52 <iive>	durandal_170: what is not OK is to reject them 
May 28 22:03:20 <durandal_170>	iive: be assured if they are important that they will not be rejected
May 28 22:03:34 <iive>	with stuff like "Sorry, life sucks. This patch is unacceptable."
May 28 22:03:50 <kurosu_>	But I'd personally be only for the equivalent of a warning if it would come to that
May 28 22:04:31 <durandal_170>	iive: i replied how bug should be correctly handled after that..
May 28 22:04:54 <iive>	durandal_170:  that's not the issue. You went on war
May 28 22:05:21 <iive>	"I will comment only this time and if I don't get positive result I will simply block every your patch."
May 28 22:05:29 <BBB>	...
May 28 22:05:41 <kurosu_>	Everyone is to blame with this mess
May 28 22:05:52 <kurosu_>	People should have been told to cool off
May 28 22:05:59 <iive>	absolutely correct.
May 28 22:06:04 <BBB>	I think that’s the point of the VLC tempbans on the ML
May 28 22:06:17 <BBB>	a 1-day ban is essentially just to cool down
May 28 22:06:23 <durandal_170>	iive: i wrote that, but I looked at later diffs...
May 28 22:06:50 <iive>	durandal_170: but the "life sucks" is action on our promise.
May 28 22:06:55 <kurosu_>	Exactly, although an informal warning would have been a prelude
May 28 22:07:26 <iive>	durandal_170: you know that a polite request could be a lot more effective than threats?
May 28 22:07:31 <kurosu_>	And we are precisely starting such a discussion here
May 28 22:07:33 <BBB>	so conclusion is that the proposed disciplinary actions on the CoC will be written such that they would have prevented this but otherwise no further action?
May 28 22:08:15 <durandal_170>	BBB: further action on what?
May 28 22:08:56 <durandal_170>	iive: i asked politely multiple times
May 28 22:10:30 <BBB>	further action on derek vs carl
May 28 22:11:51 <durandal_170>	anyone could propose what to do
May 28 22:12:08 <iive>	durandal_170: you can give me links to the emails where you do that later. But in future, don't go on war. Ask other developers for help.
May 28 22:12:08 <kurosu_>	The CoC doesn't contain repercussions yet
May 28 22:12:12 <durandal_170>	thing is CoC come after this incident
May 28 22:12:44 <BBB>	I don’t even think the CoC strictly existed when the incident arose
May 28 22:12:54 <nevcairiel>	the CoC is just a formality, if someone wants to argue the behavior was OK because there was no CoC in place yet, i dont want to work with them in the first place
May 28 22:13:37 <BBB>	right
May 28 22:13:40 <durandal_170>	it certainly was not OK... but how can we proceed?
May 28 22:13:54 <kurosu_>	I'm not - I just want CoC to contain it then it to be used for the decision to be made
May 28 22:14:36 <BBB>	going by the VLC CoC (https://wiki.videolan.org/Code_of_Conduct/)
May 28 22:14:47 <BBB>	mailing list violations
May 28 22:15:06 <BBB>	first bulletpoint for non-netiquette violations: “24-hour ban from the mailing list in question.”
May 28 22:15:19 <BBB>	and also “As one cannot develop without the mailing lists, a ban from a *-devel mailing list will result in a ban from commit access for one day on the related project.”
May 28 22:15:23 <nevcairiel>	i dont think its as simple as a "mailing list violation"
May 28 22:15:33 <BBB>	no it clearly wasn't
May 28 22:16:07 <BBB>	oh, there’s an escalation section before that
May 28 22:16:09 <BBB>	“The first violation will always result in a simple warning, except if it is a grave or deliberate violation.”
May 28 22:16:20 <BBB>	(I’m assuming this one is considered grave)
May 28 22:16:23 <BBB>	and then: “The following violations will result in some of the disciplinary actions listed in the paragraphs below.”
May 28 22:16:43 <BBB>	so, I think we should formally ban carl from the ML for 24 hrs and ban his commit access for the same period
May 28 22:16:47 <iive>	what exactly is grave situation?
May 28 22:17:04 <BBB>	iive: this is how lawyers get rich
May 28 22:17:18 <iive>	<BBB> (I’m assuming this one is considered grave)
May 28 22:17:25 <kurosu_>	Something that is seen worthy of repercussions by several people
May 28 22:17:32 <iive>	i'd like to know why what you consider grave
May 28 22:17:55 <BBB>	iive: that’s not necessary for this decision
May 28 22:18:06 <BBB>	iive: we merely need to know whether this particular instance was grave or not
May 28 22:18:21 <iive>	and do YOU think it was?
May 28 22:18:23 <BBB>	we don’t need to put a line in the sand on what is grave and what is not, we can do that as situations arise
May 28 22:18:51 <kurosu_>	Well Carl hasn't been treated kindly but the situation has actually been rotting for years now
May 28 22:19:04 <durandal_170>	we can put vote on ML...
May 28 22:19:54 <kurosu_>	CoC would avoid abuse in one way or another, so that this situation doesn't actually rot
May 28 22:23:46 <BBB>	durandal_170: vote on … CoC? or my proposal?
May 28 22:24:02 <kurosu_>	Durandal_170: I'm ok for a vote on Carl, after the CoC contains repercussions (is it a warning? A 1 day ban? Etc)
May 28 22:24:39 <iive>	it's warning
May 28 22:24:56 <durandal_170>	on ML? irc meeting don't have enough members
May 28 22:25:15 <kurosu_>	Durandal_170: ML
May 28 22:25:45 <iive>	you see, this is perfect example why CoC should not punishment clauses
May 28 22:26:03 <iive>	we are not discussing things on principle, we are looking for a way to punish Carl.
May 28 22:26:18 <iive>	and we should be looking for a way to avoid getting there.
May 28 22:26:54 <nevcairiel>	its too late now, and we need to handle the situation at hand
May 28 22:27:03 <kurosu_>	I have the polar opinion, I consider that harassment towards Carl should be equally punished if found a harassment
May 28 22:27:34 <iive>	kurosu_: It should stop.
May 28 22:28:24 <kurosu_>	nevcairiel, do you want a vote here and now, to what effect?
May 28 22:29:00 <nevcairiel>	yes everyone should be happy and get along, but in real-life people don't, and we need to be prepared to handle that if needed, instead of burying our  heads in the sand and losing people over that
May 28 22:30:43 <BBB>	*clap*clap*clap* ++
May 28 22:31:09 <BBB>	I agree that a vote on the ML would be better to give people that fell asleep here the chance to participate also
May 28 22:34:59 <kurosu_>	It's late here. I'm ok for a vote also, just not sure what kind of offense it would be
May 28 22:35:09 <kurosu_>	That could be part of the vote
May 28 22:35:23 <kurosu_>	BTW public vote?
May 28 22:36:08 <kurosu_>	It seems it has always been so
May 28 22:36:37 <iive>	it's hard to fight slender campaign
May 28 22:37:05 <iive>	as it might not involve strong offensive words.
May 28 22:38:08 <kurosu_>	Well people can make an opinion for themselves
May 28 22:39:05 <iive>	ffmpeg was broken apart once from such campaign.
May 28 22:39:38 <saste>	I have to leave now, please send the chat log to the ML when the meeting closes
May 28 22:39:53 <saste>	goodbye! ;-)
May 28 22:39:59 <iive>	have fun :)
May 28 22:40:12 <michaelni>	saste, have fun !
May 28 22:42:27 <kurosu_>	Same here. Debate is done for me, I'll then act upon whatever is decided for vote afterwards
May 28 22:42:41 <kurosu_>	Good night 
May 28 22:42:52 *	kurosu_ has quit ()
May 28 22:43:29 *	saste (~saste___@151.56.107.16) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016 ("Leaving")
May 28 22:50:10 <atomnuker>	you know, I think we should define a multimedia-based drinking game and put it up on our website
May 28 22:50:35 <nevcairiel>	identify the codec by its artifacts
May 28 22:50:44 <atomnuker>	take a shot for every AVI extension/hack your file has (double for B-frames)
May 28 22:50:59 <atomnuker>	take a shot if your VFR file doesn't play right
May 28 22:51:06 <iive>	atomnuker: drinking 10l cola?
May 28 22:51:15 <nevcairiel>	poor anime people atomnuker
May 28 22:51:26 <atomnuker>	never understood that 10l cola thing
May 28 22:52:01 <atomnuker>	oh oh take a shot if your file has an incorrect colorspace (e.g. 601 flagged 709)
May 28 22:52:23 <iive>	it's from mplayer, a figurative punishment for breaking the build.
May 28 22:52:45 <atomnuker>	ah, that's before my time
May 28 22:52:58 <iive>	oh, and it is the cola brand you don't like :D otherwise it won't be punishment.
May 28 22:53:13 <atomnuker>	doctor pepper is poison
May 28 22:53:37 <atomnuker>	anamorphic video -> take a shot
May 28 22:54:00 <atomnuker>	weird crop/whatever flag in your mkv -> take a shot
May 28 22:54:30 <mateo`>	atomnuker: anamorphic video not flagged as such
May 28 22:54:38 <atomnuker>	I wonder what would be horrible enough to make you want to finish your bottle
May 28 22:55:01 <nevcairiel>	anamorphic isnt that bad, its just terrible if no AR is indicated =p
May 28 22:58:03 <atomnuker>	a shot if you see a jpeg2000 image/video anywhere outside professional stuff
May 28 22:59:21 <nevcairiel>	i have a few DCP trailers of movies, not sure if that counts
May 28 22:59:45 <atomnuker>	a shot for direct (e.g. sped up) 24(/1.001) to 25fps conversion
May 28 23:00:06 <nevcairiel>	thats unfair for people living in PAL land =p
May 28 23:00:13 <nevcairiel>	thats like, all our content!
May 28 23:00:13 <nevcairiel>	:D
May 28 23:00:39 <iive>	do you want to make all developers a chronic alcoholics? :P
May 28 23:01:00 <atomnuker>	those are all small shots, they don't add up
May 28 23:01:23 <atomnuker>	and I can't think of anything horrific to make me drink an entire bottle
May 28 23:01:53 <iive>	you drink it, one shot at a time :)
May 28 23:02:16 <atomnuker>	you can't get drunk like that, gotta drink a whole bottle at a time
May 28 23:02:58 <atomnuker>	well, depends on the alcohol too I guess
May 28 23:05:02 <atomnuker>	take a shot for some fuzzed wav file being recognized as aac/h264/mp3
May 28 23:05:27 <atomnuker>	drink the entire bottle if it gets recognized as... theora
May 28 23:05:35 <atomnuker>	that's sufficiently rare
May 28 23:05:38 <atomnuker>	or VC1
May 28 23:05:41 <nevcairiel>	not sure that can even happen
May 28 23:06:14 <atomnuker>	cosmic rays is the sole cause of all miracles that *may* happen
May 28 23:06:29 <atomnuker>	I believe in them
May 28 23:07:08 <atomnuker>	at this moment billions of neutrinos occupy my laptop in a 1x1x1m cube
May 28 23:07:45 <atomnuker>	all it would take is a couple of thousand to react and flip some bits
May 28 23:08:35 <iive>	i thought neutrinos don't react... that's why they are so hard to detect.
May 28 23:11:48 <atomnuker>	if they don't react how could you even detect them?
May 28 23:12:55 <atomnuker>	they do, but because they're so low energy it takes quite a lot of matter for them to make a difference and generate a photon
May 28 23:20:55 <iive>	well, I wasn't precise... 
May 28 23:23:12 <Timothy_Gu>	So is the meeting done?
May 28 23:23:52 <iive>	i guess
May 28 23:26:06 *	Compn waves at cehoyos
May 28 23:26:07 <Compn>	ehe
May 28 23:26:17 <Compn>	how goes it carl? :)
May 28 23:39:29 <baptiste>	what's with carl ?
May 28 23:48:46 *	BBB has quit (Quit: BBB)
May 28 23:52:10 *	durandal_1707 has quit (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
May 28 23:55:37 *	durandal_1707 (~durandal@m83-180-58-222.cust.tele2.hr) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 23:55:57 *	durandal_170 has quit (Quit: leaving)
May 28 23:57:10 *	durandal_1707 (~durandal@m83-180-58-222.cust.tele2.hr) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 28 23:58:51 *	BBB (~rbultje@pool-173-56-121-167.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 29 00:24:48 *	kierank (sid5955@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-chhjwqpzyyehmyvm) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 29 01:39:00 *	iive has quit (Quit: They came for me...)
May 29 04:35:49 *	Timothy_Gu (~timothy_g@wikipedia/timothy-gu) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 29 04:41:13 *	BBB has quit (Quit: BBB)
May 29 06:21:12 *	arthcp (75c6c0e7@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.117.198.192.231) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 29 06:21:40 *	arthcp (75c6c0e7@gateway/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.117.198.192.231) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 29 09:21:40 *	nevcairiel (nev@WoWUIDev/WoWAce/Ace3/nevcairiel) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016 ("http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.")
May 29 10:22:39 *	Illya (sid133335@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-rfijfsjjprqfpkvu) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 29 12:38:34 *	BBB (~rbultje@pool-173-56-121-167.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 29 13:43:45 *	c_14 (~c_14@unaffiliated/c-14/x-8913907) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016 ("WeeChat 1.4")
May 29 14:19:35 *	BBB (~rbultje@pool-173-56-121-167.nycmny.fios.verizon.net) has left #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 29 17:00:46 *	omerjerk (2d791d07@gateway/web/freenode/ip.45.121.29.7) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting2016
May 29 17:22:36 *	omerjerk has quit (Ping timeout: 250 seconds)
May 29 22:43:06 *	cehoyos has quit (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
This FFmeeting is scheduled to be held either on Oct 04 or Oct 11.

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat Oct  4 17:34:05 2014

Oct 04 17:34:05 *	Now talking on #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:34:13 <saste>	hi
Oct 04 17:34:19 *	#ffmpeg-meeting :No topic is set.
Oct 04 17:35:29 <Loriker>	hi
Oct 04 17:35:39 *	saste has changed the topic to: The FFmpeg IRC meeting will start on this channel at 16 UTC, 4th October 2014. Topics of the day: http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/FFmeeting/2014-10
Oct 04 17:36:48 <Loriker>	ah, okay, you are stefano
Oct 04 17:36:54 *	Loriker gives channel operator status to saste
Oct 04 17:37:47 <saste>	Loriker, hi
Oct 04 17:40:40 <Loriker>	i am Thomas, "Loriker" is just the name for irc :)
Oct 04 17:41:01 *	cehoyos (~cehoyos@84-114-78-119.dynamic.surfer.at) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:41:11 <saste>	hi carl
Oct 04 17:41:20 <Loriker>	hi
Oct 04 17:41:31 *	ubitux (~ux@pkh.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:41:45 *	hawken (~hawken@137.37-191-139.fiber.lynet.no) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:41:59 <hawken>	Hi, I'll just log it so I can read it later :)
Oct 04 17:42:06 *	kierank (sid5955@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-nlgcyyqmufjlqgme) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:42:20 *	saste has changed the topic to: The FFmpeg IRC meeting will start on this channel at 16 UTC, 4th October 2014. Topics of the day: http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/FFmeeting/2014-10 | The channel is public and the log will be published on ffmpeg-devel
Oct 04 17:42:24 <ubitux>	i'm not exactly sure why we don't discuss this on #ffmpeg-devel but well... :)
Oct 04 17:42:38 <saste>	ubitux, it is custom to meet on a different channel
Oct 04 17:42:58 <saste>	so that you don't have to disentangle unrelated discussion happening on ffmpeg-devel at the same time
Oct 04 17:46:15 <ubitux>	ok ok
Oct 04 17:47:22 <kierank>	who is Loriker 
Oct 04 17:48:01 *	michaelni (~michael@chello084114129144.4.15.vie.surfer.at) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:48:37 <ubitux>	kierank: i'd say Thomas Volkert 
Oct 04 17:49:16 <ubitux>	RTP stuff
Oct 04 17:53:03 <Loriker>	yes, that's me
Oct 04 17:53:52 *	arwa (~arwa@14.139.82.6) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:54:58 <saste>	I'm going to post my short report about the discussion we had in Dublin with libav, since one of the topics
Oct 04 17:55:00 <saste>	http://pastebin.com/fcke3YxE
Oct 04 17:55:12 *	c_14 (~c_14@unaffiliated/c-14/x-8913907) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:55:21 *	wm4 (~wm4@ip-static-94-242-209-206.as5577.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:55:33 <saste>	I'm not going to post this on ffmpeg-devel because it wasn't yet reviewed by other persons attending the meeting
Oct 04 17:55:58 <kierank>	saste: i didn't attend the meeting
Oct 04 17:56:08 <saste>	(I asked compn and Attila to review it, compn did it in real time when we still were in dublin)
Oct 04 17:56:12 *	durandal_1707 (~r@89-164-126-126.dsl.iskon.hr) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:56:21 <saste>	kierank, ok, going to edit the report
Oct 04 17:56:26 <saste>	indeed i wasn't sure about you
Oct 04 17:56:31 *	llogan (~llogan@pdpc/supporter/student/pasteeater) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:58:02 <saste>	updated: http://pastebin.com/B1fWd4rU
Oct 04 17:58:05 *	_aca__ (~andreas@p54BB6B42.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 17:58:51 *	arwa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
Oct 04 18:00:09 <saste>	we're going to start in a few minutes
Oct 04 18:01:49 <saste>	let's start
Oct 04 18:02:01 <ubitux>	(note: you probably want to use gits or stuff like that for iterations)
Oct 04 18:02:16 <saste>	topics of the day: http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/FFmeeting/2014-10
Oct 04 18:02:32 <saste>	1. VDD 2014 report and discussion, in particular with regards to relationships with libav
Oct 04 18:02:38 <ubitux>	(gist*)
Oct 04 18:02:46 <saste>	2. OPW program organization 
Oct 04 18:02:55 <saste>	3. technical development issues
Oct 04 18:03:04 <saste>	4. misc topics
Oct 04 18:03:17 <saste>	let's start with 1. VDD 2014 report and discussion, in particular with regards to relationships with libav
Oct 04 18:03:48 <saste>	please read this short report if you didn't already do it: http://pastebin.com/B1fWd4rU
Oct 04 18:04:04 <saste>	note that this is not to be considered yet ufficial, since it lacks reviews from the libav side
Oct 04 18:04:36 <saste>	i'll leave you a couple minutes to read it, then i can try to summarize some points
Oct 04 18:05:32 *	arwa (~arwa@14.139.82.6) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:06:43 <ubitux>	nitpick: you probably want to capitalize "Libav"
Oct 04 18:07:09 <saste>	ubitux, i think "libav" is the official spelling, I might be wrong
Oct 04 18:07:21 <saste>	that's probably not important anyway ;-)
Oct 04 18:07:34 <saste>	so trying to resume i see this points:
Oct 04 18:07:49 <saste>	1. stop with reciprocal accusations and insults
Oct 04 18:08:18 <saste>	now it is not easy to say what other people consider accusations, but the general agreement was that we should stop that
Oct 04 18:08:37 <saste>	that would be functional to having better relationships between the two projects
Oct 04 18:09:09 <saste>	at some point it should also help with having some discussion about the technical problems (related to API/ABI conflicts)
Oct 04 18:09:28 <saste>	it was also proposed to edit a sort of a shared "code of conduct"
Oct 04 18:10:15 <saste>	this could not be enforced on contributors from both projects, but would represent the official "behavior" that both projects want their contributors to follow, for what concerns mutual relationships
Oct 04 18:10:48 <saste>	2. the idea of a common mailing list discussing API and design issues, was basically not agreed upon
Oct 04 18:11:59 <saste>	indeed one argumentation was that a technical mean (in this case a common ML/channel) cannot be used to overcome a social issue (related to reciprocal accusations between contributors from both projects)
Oct 04 18:12:20 <saste>	3. it was proposed to remove the ban on michael from libav channels
Oct 04 18:12:28 <saste>	not sure there is actual need for that though
Oct 04 18:12:54 <saste>	4. it was proposed to have a shared IRC meeting between the two project, moderated by a third party
Oct 04 18:13:04 <saste>	please comment about the points above
Oct 04 18:13:22 <saste>	in particular i would like to hear about the idea of a shared code of conduct
Oct 04 18:14:03 <saste>	also tell if you want to help with editing such document, assuming we agree about going with it
Oct 04 18:14:44 <wm4>	I'd also suggest stopping reliving the past every time this is discussed
Oct 04 18:15:05 <saste>	wm4, yeah that was a point raised during the discussion
Oct 04 18:15:45 <ubitux>	do we have recent examples of this?
Oct 04 18:15:46 <ubitux>	i can think of the trac...
Oct 04 18:15:48 <saste>	the idea was basically "stop talking about the past"
Oct 04 18:16:46 <saste>	ubitux, examples about insults, or talking about the past
Oct 04 18:17:24 <michaelni>	i think "code of conduct" is a bad term, isnt this called "Netiquette" everywhere ?
Oct 04 18:17:56 <saste>	michaelni, yes, but I think "netiquette" is more generic
Oct 04 18:18:23 <saste>	while this "code of conduct" should focus on a specific area, related to inter-project relationships
Oct 04 18:18:35 <saste>	then i don't mind if we want to change the name
Oct 04 18:19:15 <saste>	about such code of conduct, i don't think it should be adopted to ban people, but just to represent the "official" point of view of the project about potentially harmful behaviors
Oct 04 18:21:42 <saste>	michaelni, would you be fine in principle with having such a document?
Oct 04 18:22:38 <saste>	the long term objective is to improve social relationships between the two projects, improve cooperation and maybe in a distant future to merge them back
Oct 04 18:22:51 <saste>	of course the details about such "document" can be discussed
Oct 04 18:23:37 <llogan>	"code of conduct" seems fine to me. netiquette seems too internet localized
Oct 04 18:23:37 <llogan>	since it should also apply to non-internet meetings
Oct 04 18:24:18 <michaelni>	people insulted each other in non-internet meetings ?
Oct 04 18:24:24 <saste>	llogan, agreed
Oct 04 18:24:44 <saste>	michaelni, the real-life meeting was pretty civil I think
Oct 04 18:25:16 <saste>	michaelni, so yes it is mostly an internet-related thing
Oct 04 18:25:16 <michaelni>	and if so, that document will change that ?
Oct 04 18:25:38 <ubitux>	saste: is your irc client buffering or something?
Oct 04 18:25:49 <llogan>	michaelni: i dont know the answer to any of those questions.
Oct 04 18:25:51 <saste>	ubitux, no idea, why?
Oct 04 18:26:14 <saste>	michaelni, the point about such document is to clarify the official position of the project
Oct 04 18:26:32 <saste>	I don't think we should restrain someone from telling what he thinks
Oct 04 18:26:50 <ubitux>	saste: http://pastie.org/pastes/9620224/text look at the timestamps
Oct 04 18:26:59 <saste>	but it should be clear that that position doesn't necessarily reflect the "official" position of the project
Oct 04 18:27:18 <llogan>	saste: i see the same thing regarding your messages here
Oct 04 18:27:23 <michaelni>	saste, you seem oddly buffering/lagging here too
Oct 04 18:27:25 *	hawken too
Oct 04 18:28:21 <saste>	my bad luck...
Oct 04 18:28:57 *	Compn (notabot@107-147-234-87.res.bhn.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:28:59 <Compn>	hey
Oct 04 18:29:03 <Compn>	i'm late :(
Oct 04 18:29:32 *	nevcairiel (nev@WoWUIDev/WoWAce/Ace3/nevcairiel) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:30:24 *	arwa has quit (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
Oct 04 18:30:28 <llogan>	do we have an official point-of-view about such behaviors?
Oct 04 18:30:31 *	rcombs (~rcombs@rcombs.me) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:30:32 *	hawken has quit (Excess Flood)
Oct 04 18:30:45 <saste>	Compn, do you think the "code of conduct" thing discussed during VLDD could be useful?
Oct 04 18:30:45 *	hawken (~hawken@137.37-191-139.fiber.lynet.no) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:30:55 <saste>	llogan, no i don't think so
Oct 04 18:30:59 <llogan>	where would this CoC live?
Oct 04 18:31:07 <saste>	every dev talks for himself
Oct 04 18:31:24 <michaelni>	"<saste> michaelni, would you be fine in principle with having such a document?", yes, if people want such a document, but i dont think it would really make a difference, talking with the people involved in the once a year insults likely will work better
Oct 04 18:31:24 <saste>	llogan, i suppose as a text document somewhere
Oct 04 18:32:20 <saste>	michaelni, i'm also fine with an IRC meeting if that would help
Oct 04 18:32:20 <llogan>	was this a proposal from libav? they wanted us to make this?
Oct 04 18:32:35 <llogan>	i'm referring to the codeofconduct
Oct 04 18:32:57 <saste>	llogan, i cannot remember whence the idea came from, but I think it was from libav
Oct 04 18:33:21 <llogan>	will they have one too, or is it going to be shared between projects?
Oct 04 18:34:11 <ubitux>	so what happens in case of misrespect of the "code of conduct"?
Oct 04 18:34:14 <michaelni>	IMO it has to apply to both projects equally
Oct 04 18:34:40 <michaelni>	if it is written ...
Oct 04 18:34:46 *	Daniellynet (~Daniellyn@87-58-92-86-dynamic.dk.customer.tdc.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:35:33 *	durandal11707 (~r@141-136-242-115.dsl.iskon.hr) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:35:38 <saste>	ubitux, i don't think it should be enforced
Oct 04 18:36:33 <rcombs>	so more "conduct guidelines", I guess?
Oct 04 18:36:40 <ubitux>	so you think writting a common sense document will help?
Oct 04 18:36:40 <llogan>	seems to me it will be a scapegoat to point to if someone does make an insult.
Oct 04 18:36:54 <saste>	suppose that one contributors insults the other project
Oct 04 18:37:13 <saste>	you can say that he's not representing the official position of the project
Oct 04 18:37:48 <ubitux>	we already do that i believe, but sure ok
Oct 04 18:37:53 <saste>	it should provide a sort of "stigma" about some specific behaviors, which are toxic to both projects
Oct 04 18:38:05 *	durandal_1707 has quit (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
Oct 04 18:38:56 <llogan>	don't sound like an interesting thing to work on, but i suppose we can try it
Oct 04 18:39:25 <llogan>	if the non-existance of this is a block to progress according to libav.
Oct 04 18:39:27 *	durandal11707 is now known as durandal_1707
Oct 04 18:39:59 <ubitux>	i believe a lot of our users are responsible for the aggressive tone toward libav though
Oct 04 18:40:15 <saste>	ubitux, that also
Oct 04 18:40:18 <ubitux>	now that ffmpeg is available again in debian (soon ubuntu?) i would guess it will become smoother
Oct 04 18:40:30 <wm4>	ubitux: I think that's a problem Libav created
Oct 04 18:40:30 <ubitux>	also, i think libav fixed the avconv message?
Oct 04 18:40:39 <ubitux>	or not yet?
Oct 04 18:40:39 <wm4>	by making ffmpeg output a message that it's deprecated...
Oct 04 18:40:51 <llogan>	ubitux: no. they just dropped their ffmpeg
Oct 04 18:40:57 *	kurosu (kurosu@2a01:e35:8ae7:63a0:bc71:e47e:5b76:19b4) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:40:58 <llogan>	there were two messages
Oct 04 18:41:00 <wm4>	they fixed it in libav 8
Oct 04 18:41:04 <llogan>	both confusing to lay-users
Oct 04 18:41:08 <wm4>	which is still maintained and which has ffmpeg.c or so
Oct 04 18:41:15 *	arwa (~arwa@14.139.82.6) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:41:23 <llogan>	one was a message upstream, and one was from Ubuntu, IIRC
Oct 04 18:41:24 <ubitux>	llogan: Diego sent a patch for that, with a very long review process, but i thought it was applied at some point
Oct 04 18:41:35 <ubitux>	not long ago
Oct 04 18:41:45 <wm4>	whether or whether not there were ill intentions behind this baldy formulated message, it seemed to make libav unpopular with users
Oct 04 18:41:59 <llogan>	ubitux: oh. i guess that's when i quit giving a shit
Oct 04 18:45:19 <llogan>	ubitux: yes, i think having our ffmpeg available in a few years will calm users
Oct 04 18:45:43 <ubitux>	a few years? it already is available
Oct 04 18:46:15 <llogan>	i was joking, but i thought it was currently in testing?
Oct 04 18:46:26 <ubitux>	it moved to unstable
Oct 04 18:46:47 <ubitux>	the main discussion is about getting into jessie or not
Oct 04 18:47:01 <ubitux>	i don't know how long it will take before it gets back in ubuntu
Oct 04 18:47:28 <llogan>	that's what i was mostly referring to
Oct 04 18:48:33 <ubitux>	anyway, should we move on to the next topic?
Oct 04 18:51:50 <llogan>	OPW
Oct 04 18:52:05 <saste>	ubitux, if there is no more to discuss, we can go forward
Oct 04 18:53:47 <ubitux>	about OPW, i think the wiki is missing a "Information for Mentors"
Oct 04 18:53:49 <Compn>	sorry i is back
Oct 04 18:54:09 <ubitux>	typically, i have no idea what i'm supposed to really do or say for applicants
Oct 04 18:54:12 <Compn>	saste : not really. do we have any disruptions on the mailing list in the last 2 years? i cant think of any
Oct 04 18:54:28 <ubitux>	right now i have 2 students trying to write (different) subtitles demuxer
Oct 04 18:54:29 <Compn>	or irc or bugtrac ?
Oct 04 18:54:51 <ubitux>	i'm not sure how much i'm suppose to help them, or tell them
Oct 04 18:54:58 <ubitux>	i think we have a budget just for one student, right?
Oct 04 18:55:16 <wm4>	also 2 people working on subs at the same time?
Oct 04 18:55:26 <wm4>	isn't it 1 task?
Oct 04 18:55:33 <ubitux>	wm4: both of them asked for that specific thing
Oct 04 18:55:51 <wm4>	so only 1 of them can actually work on it eventually
Oct 04 18:56:01 <wm4>	or can the task be split?
Oct 04 18:56:06 <ubitux>	i just guide them through a self-made qualification task, but i don't really know what to do
Oct 04 18:56:07 <michaelni>	ubitux, yes we have money for 1 slot, its possible we find another sponsor before slot assigment and its possible we get some slot from a sponsor which didnt pin their donation to a project
Oct 04 18:56:09 <wm4>	what is their task at all?
Oct 04 18:56:18 <wm4>	ubitux: I think you're guiding fine
Oct 04 18:56:41 *	Holden (~holden@unaffiliated/holdenc) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 18:57:08 <ubitux>	"The application deadline is October 22, 2014 and internship dates are December 9, 2014 to March 9, 2015."
Oct 04 18:57:12 <Compn>	not sure if you guys saw this, heres the transcript of the meeting we had at vdd
Oct 04 18:57:16 <Compn>	saste : http://paste.ubuntu.com/8488924/
Oct 04 18:57:18 <ubitux>	so at the end of this month, we'll choose one?
Oct 04 18:57:31 <michaelni>	also theres #opw & #opw-admin on GIMPNet if some mentor or applicant has questions that arent sufficiently awnsered by us
Oct 04 18:58:07 <ubitux>	am i supposed to register or something?
Oct 04 18:58:12 <saste>	Compn, thanks
Oct 04 18:58:19 <michaelni>	ubitux, no clue
Oct 04 18:58:34 <ubitux>	lol
Oct 04 18:58:51 <michaelni>	for gsoc mentors & students have to register IIRC
Oct 04 18:58:53 <ubitux>	any other mentor has current student candidates?
Oct 04 18:59:12 <Compn>	does opw pay mentors ? or no
Oct 04 18:59:19 <saste>	michaelni, i remember a proposal from a student, but i probably missed to reply
Oct 04 18:59:21 <Compn>	if yes, then probably you need to register ubitux
Oct 04 18:59:28 <michaelni>	there was one who wanted to do postproc asm
Oct 04 18:59:37 <saste>	if you remember please ping me, although I'm not sure i'll be able to mentor
Oct 04 19:00:39 <llogan>	ubitux: you do need to sign up as a mentor.
Oct 04 19:00:56 <ubitux>	erm, ok
Oct 04 19:01:51 <michaelni>	saste, i only see juliet (ALS encoder) which i think is handled by paul & thilo
Oct 04 19:02:12 <saste>	michaelni, ok, and sorry for not being reactive in this period
Oct 04 19:03:03 <ubitux>	do i have to do it after the qualification tasks?
Oct 04 19:03:03 <llogan>	https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/Admin/GettingStarted
Oct 04 19:03:03 <ubitux>	alright, this should be mentioned in our wiki
Oct 04 19:03:17 <durandal_1707>	there is opw page where ffmpeg stuff is tracked?
Oct 04 19:04:40 <Holden>	Hello everyone, sorry for being late. I have one student candidate (myra) for the symmetric block ciphers project. She is going to submit her qualification task in the following days
Oct 04 19:05:09 <Compn>	durandal_1707 : we had a trac page for it , i thought?
Oct 04 19:05:37 <llogan>	other project OPW pages can be seen here: https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen/2014/DecemberMarch
Oct 04 19:05:37 <llogan>	https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/SponsoringPrograms/OPW/2014-12
Oct 04 19:06:00 <ubitux>	i think we should make sure our students are aware that there are quite a bunch of applicants
Oct 04 19:06:30 <ubitux>	and that despite how good they are and what they do, we'll pick only of them (maybe more if a miracle happens)
Oct 04 19:07:13 <michaelni>	i think its likely that if we end with 5 highly qualified applicants that we would get more slots
Oct 04 19:07:35 <michaelni>	also we dont have a single qualification task finished and submitted yet
Oct 04 19:07:45 <michaelni>	not even a first iteration for a patch for one
Oct 04 19:08:08 <michaelni>	so maybe dont yet drive applicants away ;)
Oct 04 19:08:41 <michaelni>	but yes we should publish the information we have about the slots
Oct 04 19:08:43 <llogan>	we could make a list of current applicants on the wiki page (and serve as a reminder for us)
Oct 04 19:08:43 <ubitux>	i think each section has a field for that
Oct 04 19:08:43 *	kriegerod (~krieger@vpk-vityaz.od.ua) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 19:08:44 <ubitux>	i should ask the subtitles candidates to add themselves
Oct 04 19:09:10 <ubitux>	ok
Oct 04 19:09:10 <michaelni>	yes all candidates should add themselfs
Oct 04 19:11:18 <Compn>	is there anything we can help with opw ? (my lazyness already regrets asking this)
Oct 04 19:12:27 <ubitux>	what i mentioned above for the wiki
Oct 04 19:12:31 <michaelni>	Compn, hmm theres always work to do, someone should document on our wiki what/if registering is needed for applicants & mentors
Oct 04 19:13:13 <michaelni>	also, opw is not just limited to coding if someone still wants to mentor & add other tasks to the wiki
Oct 04 19:14:16 <Compn>	ok good to know
Oct 04 19:14:55 <Compn>	although we just got a website overhaul. maybe something could be done to ensure our docs are correct and all examples still work
Oct 04 19:15:11 <Compn>	although i think those were all added recently, so should be ok
Oct 04 19:15:18 <llogan>	Compn: take a look at the other participating orgs OPW pages for some ideas, perhaps. i'd do it but i leave tomorrow for a week.
Oct 04 19:15:25 <Compn>	good idea
Oct 04 19:19:10 <ubitux>	by the way, i don't know who fixed the pictures in the opw page, but thank you
Oct 04 19:19:40 <ubitux>	are we done with the opw thing or there is more?
Oct 04 19:20:12 <saste>	who's going to decide what candidates to accept?
Oct 04 19:20:32 <michaelni>	mentors i guess
Oct 04 19:20:34 <saste>	or in other words, what about the selection process?
Oct 04 19:20:36 <Compn>	mentors could do it as a group, or seperate ?
Oct 04 19:20:57 <saste>	michaelni, in case we have more than one valid candidate?
Oct 04 19:20:58 <llogan>	doesn't sound like any of us read the OPW docs. maybe it provides guidelines?
Oct 04 19:21:13 <Compn>	llogan : no one rtfm ;P
Oct 04 19:21:45 <saste>	ok, so we have to clarify this point
Oct 04 19:21:56 <saste>	probably this is not the right place where to do it anyway...
Oct 04 19:22:15 <michaelni>	id say mentors should discuss and find consensus of who to accept (is most likely successfull & will most likely continue contributing in the future)
Oct 04 19:22:15 <llogan>	lets move on to next topic
Oct 04 19:22:23 <saste>	next topic
Oct 04 19:22:40 <saste>	3. technical development issues 
Oct 04 19:22:46 <ubitux>	subtitles :(
Oct 04 19:23:34 <saste>	ubitux, i thought you was tired of subtitles, but then you surprised me again! :-D
Oct 04 19:23:49 <ubitux>	yeah i don't know either
Oct 04 19:24:03 <ubitux>	i felt motivated for some unknown reason so...
Oct 04 19:24:08 <ubitux>	that might not last long but well
Oct 04 19:25:14 <wm4>	hopefully you make it up to the point where ffmpeg can hardcode muxed subs
Oct 04 19:25:22 <wm4>	it's embarrassing that ffmpeg can't do that
Oct 04 19:28:25 <ubitux>	it can, but it's a pain
Oct 04 19:28:25 <ubitux>	i think another very embarrassing thing is the dvd support
Oct 04 19:28:25 <ubitux>	and maybe the exact seeking, which was requested several times
Oct 04 19:28:25 <ubitux>	i mean... even mencoder is better at it
Oct 04 19:28:25 <ubitux>	and somehow related, we also have needs for a better layering between protocols and formats
Oct 04 19:28:25 <ubitux>	i can think of icecast or bluray, and maybe dvds
Oct 04 19:28:25 <ubitux>	as usual, we seem to lack manpower though
Oct 04 19:28:57 <saste>	ubitux, yes
Oct 04 19:30:10 <ubitux>	i mean even mencoder is better at dvd supports, that's a shame :P
Oct 04 19:30:42 <saste>	anybody tracking the libdvdread repo from videolan?
Oct 04 19:30:59 <saste>	my old patches were a bit of a mess
Oct 04 19:31:20 <saste>	libblurary is much easier to use in comparation
Oct 04 19:31:45 <ubitux>	you should probably discuss this with j-b
Oct 04 19:32:03 <ubitux>	another solution is to NIH it, but we'll probably get a bunch of hysterical nerds taunting us if we do that :)
Oct 04 19:32:24 <saste>	why NIH, we can just use the videolan repo
Oct 04 19:32:37 <ubitux>	builtin, etc.
Oct 04 19:32:39 <saste>	it's not like we don't have nothing better to do
Oct 04 19:32:41 <Compn>	dvd support is requested feature. one of the reasons people still use mencoder
Oct 04 19:32:58 <Compn>	j-b would probably pay you to write new dvd lib
Oct 04 19:33:05 <Compn>	but it would also probably take a year to do...
Oct 04 19:33:10 <saste>	Compn, do we have a ticket for that?
Oct 04 19:33:15 <Compn>	(he hates libdvdread)
Oct 04 19:33:19 <Compn>	iirc 
Oct 04 19:33:33 <Compn>	saste : for dvd:// in ffmpeg ? .i dont remember
Oct 04 19:33:40 <ubitux>	saste: the dvd libs seems to have a very heavy historical burden, and a bunch of things might overlap with what we have in ffmpeg
Oct 04 19:33:53 <ubitux>	so that's why i suggested this, but yeah, probably not a good idea
Oct 04 19:34:12 <Compn>	ubitux : if serious about nih, ask j-b , he may join in
Oct 04 19:34:34 <ubitux>	i really don't have the time for that
Oct 04 19:35:17 <ubitux>	btw, it would be nice of the dvd demuxer could output the subtitles :P
Oct 04 19:39:11 <ubitux>	ah and, i'm midly interested in knowing what other developers work on
Oct 04 19:39:45 <ubitux>	while i'm not asking for people to brag about it on irc like i do, developers assigning themselves to tickets might help
Oct 04 19:39:49 <hawken>	Guys, I wanted to do MVC, and I found Britz's code but if someone with some more knowledge would team up with me it would be really awesome
Oct 04 19:40:05 <ubitux>	so more people can have an overview on where the project is going
Oct 04 19:40:25 <saste>	ubitux, sorry to disappoint you, at the moment i'm doing almost nothing really relevant
Oct 04 19:40:32 <ubitux>	:(
Oct 04 19:40:44 <saste>	(working on a day-job mostly unrelated project)
Oct 04 19:41:06 <saste>	my todo list is long, but still
Oct 04 19:41:50 <saste>	i think we should find some way of internal mentoring to help people working on a given task, in case he needs help
Oct 04 19:42:10 <Compn>	hawken : ask on the list probably...
Oct 04 19:42:16 <saste>	also sponsoring important issues, but that's not easy to fix 
Oct 04 19:42:18 <Compn>	hawken : or troll some x264 guys to join you?
Oct 04 19:42:21 <ubitux>	do we have a ticket for mvc?
Oct 04 19:42:22 <hawken>	:P
Oct 04 19:42:27 <hawken>	#3002 afaik
Oct 04 19:42:41 <saste>	Compn, can you create a ticket for dvd reading support?
Oct 04 19:42:46 <Compn>	saste : sire
Oct 04 19:42:46 <ubitux>	hawken: looks unrelated
Oct 04 19:42:48 <Compn>	sure*
Oct 04 19:42:49 <hawken>	Ah..
Oct 04 19:42:52 <hawken>	Was something in that range
Oct 04 19:42:54 <hawken>	maybe 3004
Oct 04 19:43:00 <ubitux>	saste, Compn are you sure we haven't one already?
Oct 04 19:43:09 <hawken>	Damn.. not that one either
Oct 04 19:43:11 <hawken>	I'll find it
Oct 04 19:43:19 <hawken>	#3009
Oct 04 19:43:30 <ubitux>	Compn: saste: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/3280
Oct 04 19:43:59 <ubitux>	hawken: please participate in that ticket then
Oct 04 19:44:16 <ubitux>	hawken: use it to centralize your knowledge/references of it
Oct 04 19:44:31 <ubitux>	and then send a mail to ffmpeg-devel asking for more
Oct 04 19:44:55 <ubitux>	Compn: good job, now please close it as duplicate
Oct 04 19:44:56 <ubitux>	:p
Oct 04 19:44:58 <Compn>	ubitux : closed.
Oct 04 19:45:00 <Compn>	:P
Oct 04 19:45:04 *	Compn afk
Oct 04 19:46:07 <saste>	anything else, or should we proceed to the next point?
Oct 04 19:47:08 <saste>	4. misc topics 
Oct 04 19:47:14 <wm4>	<hawken> Guys, I wanted to do MVC, and I found Britz's code but if someone with some more knowledge would team up with me it would be really awesome <- didn't someone on Libav (koda) also do MVC?
Oct 04 19:47:46 <ubitux>	i believe i pointed him to koda already yeah
Oct 04 19:49:18 <ubitux>	on a misc. topic, i'd like to mention that some libass developers (hello rcombs) are kind of working on a new standardization of the ASS subtitles format/markup
Oct 04 19:49:47 <rcombs>	'ehlo
Oct 04 19:50:22 <kierank>	wm4: koda just did some libav cleaning
Oct 04 19:50:27 <kierank>	didn't actually work on mvc
Oct 04 19:50:33 <michaelni>	hawken, also maybe ask/contact Peter Wimmer and Gerion Entrup, i do see mails from them about MVC on the ML
Oct 04 19:50:50 <ubitux>	this concerns FFmpeg because we might probably use it as our internal representation of decoded subtitles when the time comes
Oct 04 19:50:50 <ubitux>	of course, currently the goal is to switch to a proper sane ASSv4 instead of the hack we currently have
Oct 04 19:59:13 <saste>	uh i think we shall move to the next topics
Oct 04 19:59:26 <saste>	assuming people is not already sleeping :-)
Oct 04 19:59:30 <hawken>	wm4: Couldn't find anything on google with koda, MVC and libav as keywords :P
Oct 04 20:00:01 <saste>	who knows the name of koda?
Oct 04 20:00:20 <saste>	hawken, that's also because #libav-devel logs are not archived
Oct 04 20:00:23 <saste>	IIRC
Oct 04 20:00:54 *	durandal_1707 has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
Oct 04 20:01:13 <hawken>	AH, well it says here https://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel-irc/2014-February/001905.html "<nevcairiel> its something a student wrote for a thesis without a care in the world for style or whatnot koda from libav has been trying to untangle the decoder for a while as well"
Oct 04 20:01:24 <hawken>	So that's basically the same code that I cleaned up
Oct 04 20:01:25 <ubitux>	saste: koda is Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>
Oct 04 20:02:01 <hawken>	But I didn't get so far as to apply it to current codebase, but I made a patch that looked nice for the version he started working on
Oct 04 20:02:04 <hawken>	if anyone are interested
Oct 04 20:02:08 <saste>	ubitux, thanks
Oct 04 20:03:32 <llogan>	hawken: you could always post stuff to ffmpeg-devel as [RFC] request for comment if you need help, etc.
Oct 04 20:04:03 <llogan>	"stuff" being patches that you intend to eventually send to ffmpeg-devel
Oct 04 20:04:09 <saste>	hawken, yes post a patch as an RFC if it's still not ready, and ping it until you get some attention
Oct 04 20:04:17 <saste>	hopefully someone will be able to help
Oct 04 20:04:30 <hawken>	It segfaulted though ^_^
Oct 04 20:04:33 <hawken>	mhm
Oct 04 20:04:40 <hawken>	sorry to take up your time, please proceed :P
Oct 04 20:05:07 <saste>	next topic is: misc topics
Oct 04 20:05:15 <saste>	whatever was not covered in the previous ones
Oct 04 20:05:31 <ubitux>	what i said about libass development
Oct 04 20:05:58 <ubitux>	some people might be interested, and might want to request stuff for the next standard
Oct 04 20:06:18 <ubitux>	typically, i asked for ruby character/furigana support, because webvtt has such support
Oct 04 20:06:29 <ubitux>	and we need it for the decoded form of the webvtt subtitles
Oct 04 20:06:48 <ubitux>	anyway, just a random misc topic
Oct 04 20:07:30 <michaelni>	about misc, someone should update fateserver to allow displaying only a specific release or master
Oct 04 20:08:14 <michaelni>	daemon404 wanted to look into it but then became very busy ...
Oct 04 20:08:22 <llogan>	maybe timothy would be interested.
Oct 04 20:08:54 <michaelni>	he wasnt when i asked week(s) ago but maybe that changed 
Oct 04 20:09:25 <wm4>	apropos debian: "Still, due to https://bugs.debian.org/763148 (it's not really a bug, but the Debian security team doesn't want to have to deal with both libav and ffmpeg in the stable release, and at this point it's too late to switch to ffmpeg) the ffmpeg packages aren't going to be in the next Debian release"
Oct 04 20:11:49 <_aca__>	wm4: unless we convince them
Oct 04 20:12:15 <saste>	about IRC meetings, should we have a plan and have regular meetings, or just discuss them when there seem to be a need?
Oct 04 20:12:50 <ubitux>	saste: no opinion, maybe post releases could be nice
Oct 04 20:13:04 <saste>	the past one was in January
Oct 04 20:13:20 <llogan>	i don't have a strong option, but i would like them to move along at a slightly faster pace
Oct 04 20:13:51 <ubitux>	ah and i have another suggestion
Oct 04 20:13:51 <saste>	and RL meetings seem not very realistic at this point (but there are several FLOSS events when we could meet)
Oct 04 20:14:03 <ubitux>	the archlinux distribution is doing some kind of "bug day"
Oct 04 20:15:58 <saste>	ubitux, how does it work?
Oct 04 20:16:12 <saste>	we proposed such things in the past but they never worked
Oct 04 20:16:17 <ubitux>	where basically the project focus on fixing bug for one day or two
Oct 04 20:16:40 <saste>	like the proposal to sponsor popular/old issue fixing 
Oct 04 20:16:48 <saste>	ubitux, why not anyway
Oct 04 20:17:01 <ubitux>	users come to give a hand or complain
Oct 04 20:17:01 <ubitux>	(they open a room for such thing)
Oct 04 20:17:02 <ubitux>	i don't know if they continue to do that though
Oct 04 20:17:02 <ubitux>	but it was a thing at some point
Oct 04 20:17:02 <ubitux>	i thought it wasn't a bad idea, and it might be a good opportunity to talk with our users
Oct 04 20:17:02 <ubitux>	not sure how relevant this is, just an idea.
Oct 04 20:17:02 <ubitux>	they do a news on the website
Oct 04 20:17:02 <ubitux>	saying "hey next saturday we do a bug day, come join us on #archlinux-bugs"
Oct 04 20:17:02 <ubitux>	yeah i see
Oct 04 20:17:02 <ubitux>	https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Bug_Day seems it didn't last long actually
Oct 04 20:17:02 <ubitux>	oh well.
Oct 04 20:17:56 <saste>	well we can try
Oct 04 20:18:08 <michaelni>	agree
Oct 04 20:18:22 <llogan>	yes. pick a date, make a wiki page.
Oct 04 20:18:29 <michaelni>	also about regular meetings i think its a good idea
Oct 04 20:18:35 <Loriker>	yes
Oct 04 20:18:50 <saste>	michaelni, every six or three months?
Oct 04 20:18:59 <michaelni>	saste, yes ;)
Oct 04 20:19:28 <saste>	at the current rate we have ~2 meetings per year
Oct 04 20:19:44 <saste>	if you have too many, people start to get bored
Oct 04 20:20:10 <saste>	in case of ffmpeg having regular meetings is important since many contributors don't track irc regularly
Oct 04 20:20:44 <saste>	should we call the end of the meeting?
Oct 04 20:20:46 <michaelni>	i have no oppinon of how often as i dont really have a feeling what is better ...
Oct 04 20:21:15 <llogan>	saste: thanks for herding us
Oct 04 20:22:02 <saste>	anything else?
Oct 04 20:22:12 *	ubitux has nothing to add
Oct 04 20:22:50 <saste>	ok, we should publish the log, probably on the wiki and send an email on ffmpeg-devel
Oct 04 20:22:59 <michaelni>	ok
Oct 04 20:23:06 <saste>	http://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/FFmeeting
Oct 04 20:23:31 *	llogan (~llogan@pdpc/supporter/student/pasteeater) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 20:23:55 <saste>	I can do it this night, feel free to beat me at it
Oct 04 20:24:21 *	hawken (~hawken@137.37-191-139.fiber.lynet.no) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 20:24:33 *	ubitux (~ux@pkh.me) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
Oct 04 20:24:42 <saste>	thanks all for joining the meeting!
Oct 04 20:25:11 <saste>	have a nice day/evening/night!
Oct 04 20:26:06 <Loriker>	thx for organizing the meeting - cu and have a good time
Oct 04 20:28:37 <michaelni>	thanks to all and bye
Oct 04 20:28:41 *	michaelni (~michael@chello084114129144.4.15.vie.surfer.at) has left #ffmpeg-meeting ("Leaving")
Oct 04 20:29:28 *	Loriker (~Lorik@HSI-KBW-046-005-036-125.hsi8.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Sat Oct  4 20:30:06 2014
This FFmeeting was hosted on ​irc://irc.freenode.net/ffmpeg-meeting on January 11, 2014, at 16 UTC.

**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat Jan 11 14:53:47 2014

Jan 11 14:53:47 *	Now talking on #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 14:53:48 *	cameron.freenode.net sets mode +n #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 14:53:48 *	cameron.freenode.net sets mode +s #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 14:55:26 *	BBB (~rbultje <at> abraxo.bluebottle.net.au) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 14:58:54 *	Compn (~notabot <at> 97.69.215.70) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 14:59:02 <Compn>	how many hours til it starts again ?
Jan 11 15:01:32 *	ubitux (~ux <at> did75-21-88-189-231-41.fbx.proxad.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:08:22 *	michaelni (~michael <at> chello084114129144.4.15.vie.surfer.at) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:12:26 <michaelni>	saste, do we have some list of topics for the meeting today ? if so maybe link to it in the /topic
Jan 11 15:31:31 *	easyfab (~chatzilla <at> 213-245-142-93.rev.numericable.fr) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:31:39 *	easyfab (~chatzilla <at> 213-245-142-93.rev.numericable.fr) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:34:24 *	easyfab (~chatzilla <at> 213-245-142-93.rev.numericable.fr) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:35:36 *	kriegerod (~krieger <at> vpk-vityaz.od.ua) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:35:41 *	beastd (~Akero7 <at> p5B06F187.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:36:08 <beastd>	hi all. sorry i misremembered the time to be an hour later :(
Jan 11 15:40:09 *	wm4 (~wm4 <at> ip-static-94-242-209-206.as5577.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:42:12 *	nevcairiel (quassel <at> WoWUIDev/WoWAce/Ace3/nevcairiel) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:42:31 <michaelni>	saste, please add "this channel is publically logged in the topic" to the topic, i think IIRC thats supposed to be there for such channels
Jan 11 15:42:52 <michaelni>	s/ in the topic//
Jan 11 15:43:14 *	kurosu_ (5545746f <at> gateway/web/freenode/ip.85.69.116.111) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:49:43 *	cbsrobot_ (~cbsrobot <at> 147.88.200.144) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 15:49:49 *	cbsrobot_ has quit (Client Quit)
Jan 11 15:50:11 *	cbsrobot_ (~cbsrobot <at> 147.88.200.144) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 16:07:41 *	saste has changed the topic to: The meeting will begin at 16 UTC - this channel is publically logged
Jan 11 16:07:59 <saste>	michaelni, done
Jan 11 16:08:26 <michaelni>	thx
Jan 11 16:17:08 *	Topic for #ffmpeg-meeting is: The meeting will begin at 16 UTC - this channel is publically logged
Jan 11 16:17:08 *	Topic for #ffmpeg-meeting set by saste!~saste___ <at> dynamic-adsl-78-15-163-248.clienti.tiscali.it at Sat Jan 11 16:07:41 2014
Jan 11 16:17:17 *	smarter (~smarter <at> ubuntu/member/smarter) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 16:18:14 *	saste has changed the topic to: The meeting will begin at 16 UTC - Topics: http://paste.org/69739 - This channel is publically logged, the log will be published on ffmpeg-devel
Jan 11 16:31:08 *	kurosu_ has quit (Quit: Page closed)
Jan 11 16:49:23 *	Cigaes (cigaes <at> ssecem.salle-s.org) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 16:50:12 *	Timothy_Gu (~Timothy_G <at> ip70-187-186-217.oc.oc.cox.net) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 16:53:08 *	Eventh- (5f22de4b <at> gateway/web/freenode/ip.95.34.222.75) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 16:54:31 <saste>	5 minutes to go
Jan 11 16:58:26 *	rmklp (~krueger <at> ip-178-200-241-251.unitymediagroup.de) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 16:59:43 *	pross-au (~xbmc <at> c114-76-138-51.sunsh2.vic.optusnet.com.au) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 17:00:53 *	j-b (~jb <at> videolan/developer/j-b) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 17:02:17 <saste>	hi all, thanks for joining
Jan 11 17:02:25 <saste>	i think it is time to start
Jan 11 17:02:52 <saste>	you can find the list of topics here:  http://paste.org/69739
Jan 11 17:03:16 <saste>	first topic: 1. technical issues, TODOs, long term projects
Jan 11 17:03:30 <saste>	who wants to start?
Jan 11 17:05:18 <kriegerod>	maybe the one who added this item to list?
Jan 11 17:05:51 <saste>	i have a list of topics left from the previous meeting, nothing specifically i want to discuss
Jan 11 17:06:12 <kriegerod>	seems others are idle, too
Jan 11 17:06:14 <pross-au>	re long term stuff. are there any such projects active atm?
Jan 11 17:06:17 <saste>	there were some devs who wanted to talk about some technical issues, but i think they are missing
Jan 11 17:06:31 <michaelni>	i wanted to ask beastd& lou about the status of backups (i think thats technical
Jan 11 17:06:36 <michaelni>	but lou isnt here
Jan 11 17:06:36 <saste>	from the list in the previous meeting:
Jan 11 17:06:40 <saste>	1. mpegts/H.264 muxing/timestamp issues
Jan 11 17:06:54 <saste>	2.  playlist design issues and issues related to chained muxers option passing
Jan 11 17:07:04 <saste>	3.  ffserver generic issues
Jan 11 17:07:17 <saste>	4. ffserver RTMP/HLS missing output support
Jan 11 17:07:26 <saste>	btw anyone interested in working with ffserver?
Jan 11 17:07:52 <wm4>	I thought everyone hated ffserver and wanted to remove it
Jan 11 17:08:13 <michaelni>	i like ffserver but my todo is too long to really work on it
Jan 11 17:08:20 <saste>	i did some documentation/cleanup work on ffserver, it's not as bad as I thought
Jan 11 17:08:24 <Cigaes>	ffserver is useful. Removing something useful just because nobody wants to maintain it is not something to do.
Jan 11 17:08:36 <saste>	most open tickets can be easily reproduced
Jan 11 17:08:42 <wm4>	then it'll have to continue sucking, I guess
Jan 11 17:08:46 <kriegerod>	i could, but cannot afford doing anything such unpaid
Jan 11 17:09:10 <saste>	the network problem I talkled about on list, I couldn't still resolve it
Jan 11 17:09:28 <ubitux>	i'd like to know what's going on with fate btw
Jan 11 17:09:38 <ubitux>	didn't someone planed some stuff about it?
Jan 11 17:09:40 <saste>	ffserver could be the object of some crowdfunding campaign, we can talk about it later
Jan 11 17:09:52 <saste>	ubitux, what's the problem with fate?
Jan 11 17:10:20 <ubitux>	i remember michaelni wanting someone to maintain it/upgrade our fate
Jan 11 17:10:32 <ubitux>	maybe related to recent security issues
Jan 11 17:10:39 <saste>	is baptiste still maintaining fate?
Jan 11 17:10:58 *	saste knows nothing about the recent security issues
Jan 11 17:11:17 <michaelni>	cross site scripting, no real issue AFAIK
Jan 11 17:11:24 <saste>	any news about the re-styling burek was working on?
Jan 11 17:12:19 <michaelni>	but even if its not a real issue a volunteer to maintain the fateserver code would be great to have
Jan 11 17:12:31 <saste>	michaelni, what needs to be done?
Jan 11 17:12:45 <saste>	in other words, what the volunteer is supposed to do specifically?
Jan 11 17:13:05 <michaelni>	update it to the latest of mans code and have time to fix&debug any thing that goes wrong
Jan 11 17:13:22 <saste>	any taker?
Jan 11 17:13:23 <michaelni>	and then if the cross site scripting issue is still there, fix it
Jan 11 17:15:38 <michaelni>	"fix&debug any thing that goes wrong" == "anything that goes wrong because of the update"
Jan 11 17:16:08 <saste>	michaelni, where the fate source code can be found?
Jan 11 17:16:27 <saste>	should we advertise it on the website/download page?
Jan 11 17:16:59 <michaelni>	ours at https://github.com/ffmpeg/fateserver / git://git.ffmpeg.org/fateserver
Jan 11 17:17:17 <saste>	is it listed on the download page?
Jan 11 17:17:17 <Compn>	ask mans if you link to mans' repo of course
Jan 11 17:18:11 <michaelni>	saste, seems not listed
Jan 11 17:18:17 <Compn>	it would also be neat if we added the ffmpeg header page to fate page, if possible
Jan 11 17:18:26 <Compn>	so people can get back to ffmpeg homepage? maybe?
Jan 11 17:18:30 <saste>	nor could i find the link in doc/fate.texi
Jan 11 17:18:49 <saste>	Compn, yes
Jan 11 17:18:51 <michaelni>	does someone take notes of these todo things ?
Jan 11 17:19:12 <saste>	currently the FATE interface is rather "spartan"
Jan 11 17:19:30 <saste>	michaelni, we have a TODO file and trac
Jan 11 17:19:48 <saste>	no TODO was killed IIRC
Jan 11 17:20:17 <michaelni>	i meant someone should make a list of todo items from this meeting, maybe open trac tickets for each
Jan 11 17:21:29 <saste>	michaelni, i can send a patch to add FATE source repo to the download page
Jan 11 17:21:54 <saste>	anyway, so far for point 1.  technical issues, TODOs, long term projects
Jan 11 17:22:10 <beastd>	TODO file inside source repo is often not useful in my experience. tracking things in one or more tickets usually works better.
Jan 11 17:22:13 <michaelni>	saste, ok for patch
Jan 11 17:22:28 <saste>	anyone wants to discuss his TODO/long term projects?
Jan 11 17:22:47 <saste>	beastd, TODO was removed for that reason indeed
Jan 11 17:23:01 <Cigaes>	beastd: I agree, but there should be a link to "all open TODO tickets" easily accessible, for anyone wanting to work on something.
Jan 11 17:23:26 <saste>	Cigaes, TODO list = enhancements?
Jan 11 17:23:28 <beastd>	Cigaes: that should be done with a report
Jan 11 17:23:49 <saste>	BTW there is a reason for the "wish" priority on trac?
Jan 11 17:24:18 <saste>	I don't think "wish" is a priority", anyway that's not a very important issue and should probably not discussed here
Jan 11 17:24:48 <Cigaes>	saste: yes, something like that. But possibly only enhancements deemed worthy enough by... enough competent people.
Jan 11 17:25:13 <saste>	anyway i'd prefer to remove that priority level (indeed an enhancement can have several priority levels)
Jan 11 17:25:42 <michaelni>	we could add a todo keyword for these and a report for tickets with that keyword could be linke dto
Jan 11 17:26:08 <saste>	Cigaes, enhancements tickets can be reviewed and edited by competent developers
Jan 11 17:26:11 <Compn>	michaelni : after the meeting we will collect ideas and make bug reports, yes
Jan 11 17:26:17 <kriegerod>	a list of all unresolved tickets can be considered a TODO
Jan 11 17:26:29 *	Compn backlogged
Jan 11 17:26:45 <kriegerod>	what's strict criteria for inclusion of ticket to TODO category?
Jan 11 17:27:00 <saste>	any ticket is a TODO
Jan 11 17:27:04 <kriegerod>	project infracstructure related?
Jan 11 17:27:04 <Compn>	do we need strict criteria ? :P
Jan 11 17:27:15 <saste>	but there are some tickets which are more important than others
Jan 11 17:27:31 <saste>	"todo" as a tag is misleading imo
Jan 11 17:27:42 <kriegerod>	ok, so TODO = critical level tickets
Jan 11 17:27:56 <Cigaes>	saste: there are also tickets that are more demanding than other.
Jan 11 17:28:13 <Compn>	difficulty and importance
Jan 11 17:28:14 <beastd>	maybe the idea from michaelni is quite pragmatic. we could tag things with todo and list all tickets tagged todo with https://trac.ffmpeg.org/tags?q=%27todo%27
Jan 11 17:28:18 *	Compn runs from the bikeshed
Jan 11 17:29:02 <saste>	discussion slided from discussion about todos to discussion about what is "todo" ;)
Jan 11 17:29:47 <beastd>	yes, which ist the hardest part. but some fuzzy solution could be sufficient
Jan 11 17:29:59 <Cigaes>	beastd: this looks like a good solution, provided the "todo" tag is not added by a wandering user for their own whims.
Jan 11 17:30:28 <michaelni>	wandering users prefer to mark their tickets as critical
Jan 11 17:30:32 <saste>	beastd, btw what about a difficulty level or tag in trac?
Jan 11 17:31:00 <saste>	so wannabee ffdevs (assuming there are some) can easily spot the easy tickets to work on
Jan 11 17:31:31 <michaelni>	small age of a ticket might work for this too btw
Jan 11 17:31:38 <michaelni>	old tickets tend to be harder
Jan 11 17:32:14 <kriegerod>	...or less important
Jan 11 17:32:34 <michaelni>	yes
Jan 11 17:32:52 <saste>	Cigaes, what's the status of the lavd probing API?
Jan 11 17:33:24 <saste>	is lukasz still working on it or is it blocked for some reason?
Jan 11 17:33:38 <beastd>	saste: dfficulty can be done. either we add a new custom ticket field or now with tags. we would need on a convention either way
Jan 11 17:33:43 <Cigaes>	saste: that was more Lukasz's work. I did not have personal communication with him.
Jan 11 17:33:54 <saste>	Cigaes, ok
Jan 11 17:34:27 <saste>	so far for what concerns point 1. technical issues, TODOs, long term projects
Jan 11 17:34:38 <saste>	?
Jan 11 17:35:08 <saste>	do we have comments from external users?
Jan 11 17:35:30 <Cigaes>	I can mention the few items I have in my personal TODO list, if anyone is interested.
Jan 11 17:35:38 <saste>	Cigaes, go on
Jan 11 17:35:57 <Cigaes>	I have started working on frame-accurate EDL.
Jan 11 17:36:23 <saste>	status?
Jan 11 17:36:24 <Cigaes>	For now, it works without threads but not at all with threads. I am a bit stuck there, but I had no time to really investigate the issue yet.
Jan 11 17:37:22 <Compn>	so you can seek to a frame number ?
Jan 11 17:37:29 <Compn>	thats a highly requested feature
Jan 11 17:37:30 <ubitux>	what about the subtitles charset thing?
Jan 11 17:37:46 <Compn>	Cigaes : even without threads support it would be useful ...
Jan 11 17:37:47 <ubitux>	Cigaes: i think at least wm4 holds a grudge about your plan
Jan 11 17:37:57 <Cigaes>	Compn: to a timestamp. But for now only in selected muxers.
Jan 11 17:38:02 <Compn>	ah
Jan 11 17:38:28 <ubitux>	in the subtitles charset project i'm mainly interested in the utf-16 supports
Jan 11 17:38:33 <Cigaes>	ubitux: I am still convinced that his plan do not work at all.
Jan 11 17:38:35 <ubitux>	i think that's what mpv is expecting the most
Jan 11 17:39:00 <Compn>	rather hear what vlc wants charset wise
Jan 11 17:39:07 <Compn>	j-b : what charsets does vlc require ? 
Jan 11 17:39:11 <Cigaes>	... but I am not motivated for arguing the issue.
Jan 11 17:39:12 <Compn>	for subs
Jan 11 17:39:38 <ubitux>	Cigaes: question is, do you have some WIP and plans about it?
Jan 11 17:39:55 <j-b>	Compn: none. We support everything. We prefer that the decoder outputs UTF-8, of course, but it does not matter.
Jan 11 17:40:23 <j-b>	Compn: iconv is a hard dependency of vlccore.
Jan 11 17:40:23 <Cigaes>	ubitux: all I have WIP was posted on the mailing-list a long time ago and buried under bikeshedding.
Jan 11 17:40:49 <michaelni>	Cigaes, ubitux my main concern with the "charset issue" is that it appeared deadlocked with noone working on it
Jan 11 17:41:07 <ubitux>	ok
Jan 11 17:41:48 <michaelni>	Cigaes, or said diferently it appeared IIRC that noone wanted to work on your design and you also where too busy 
Jan 11 17:41:55 <Cigaes>	I am willing to work on it, but I can not progress if the only voice on the ML says I am doing wrong.
Jan 11 17:42:43 <michaelni>	its difficult for me ATM to argue about it as iam a bit unprepared and half forgot the details of the "charset issue"
Jan 11 17:43:28 *	cbsrobot_ has quit (Remote host closed the connection)
Jan 11 17:43:53 <Cigaes>	I can try to write a summary about the status of the thing on the mailing list.
Jan 11 17:44:44 <saste>	Cigaes, or you ping people if you need someone to review/comment on your work
Jan 11 17:44:48 <saste>	that sometimes work
Jan 11 17:45:18 <saste>	other medium/long term projects were mentioned in the previous meeting:
Jan 11 17:45:20 <michaelni>	what i remember and that may be unrelated actually is that i felt it would be nice if decoders/demuxers could return subtitles without knowing the charset and leaving it to players to detect/interpret the text
Jan 11 17:45:24 <Cigaes>	saste: I will see if there are pingable pending mails.
Jan 11 17:45:32 <saste>	1. remaining mp filters port
Jan 11 17:45:43 <saste>	2. language binding creation (through SWIG or similar)
Jan 11 17:45:51 <michaelni>	Cigaes, and yes, a summary would be nice, it would be a pitty if the thing is deadlocked in bikeshed
Jan 11 17:45:52 <saste>	3. high level API creation
Jan 11 17:46:03 <saste>	4.  EDL support
Jan 11 17:46:20 <beastd>	I have another proposal for TODO
Jan 11 17:47:05 <beastd>	concerning ffmpeg CLI there is the frequent need to concatenate files. ffmpeg has gotten much better in doing it, but at least we lack a simple-to-use user interface. (short term the faq entry should be rewritten once more.) Long/mid term would be designing and implementing a user interface in ffmpeg to allow for easy concatenation.
Jan 11 17:47:08 <Cigaes>	saste: is 4 what I was talking abut a bit earlier.
Jan 11 17:47:45 <michaelni>	beastd, this sounds related to playlists
Jan 11 17:47:49 <saste>	Cigaes, yes I noticed
Jan 11 17:47:56 <beastd>	it is something users frequently do. a start would be someone thinking about a design and sending it as RFC to ffmpeg-devel ML
Jan 11 17:48:05 <beastd>	michaelni: could be related
Jan 11 17:48:12 <Compn>	beastd : make it as easy as multiple files with mencoder ?
Jan 11 17:48:21 <michaelni>	beastd, if you could specify a list of files to play then you basically have concatenation
Jan 11 17:48:23 <wm4>	about subtitles, yes, the only thing that's missing is utf-16 support
Jan 11 17:48:32 <Compn>	we need playlist support :)
Jan 11 17:49:08 <ubitux>	what do you mean by "playlist support"? don't we support already various playlists?
Jan 11 17:49:10 <Compn>	wm4 : do we have rar subs support? (playing files in rars or rar'd vobsubs) ?
Jan 11 17:49:21 <wm4>	no
Jan 11 17:49:24 <Cigaes>	Compn: we already have a lot of playlist formats support,
Jan 11 17:49:24 <kriegerod>	beastd, i think there's a class of existing apps that do that. Maybe we could google them up and highlight on some page? Anyway GUI tends to be standalone, that's different from "doing it by ffmpeg"
Jan 11 17:49:25 <saste>	about playlist, can't the concat demuxer be extended to support more playlist formats?
Jan 11 17:49:37 <wm4>	I know mplayer contains some extremely hideous code to invoke unrar on the fly
Jan 11 17:49:38 <Cigaes>	just no consistent way of validating access to other files.
Jan 11 17:49:43 <Compn>	saste : there was a patch in 2009 for that playlist api
Jan 11 17:49:59 <saste>	Compn, was that work on Anton?
Jan 11 17:50:04 <Compn>	no
Jan 11 17:50:05 <beastd>	kriegerod: true, we should look at other implementations
Jan 11 17:50:06 <wm4>	playlist parsers (as demuxers) would be nice
Jan 11 17:50:06 <Compn>	geza iirc
Jan 11 17:50:10 <saste>	we had a GSOC at some point, maybe it was after the fork
Jan 11 17:50:13 <Compn>	but i dont know who did original patch
Jan 11 17:50:25 <Compn>	someone said anton was working on it , but ... i dont see anything
Jan 11 17:50:37 <nevcairiel>	Antons GSOC was playlist support, before the fork, but it never really went anywhere :d
Jan 11 17:50:53 <Cigaes>	The concat demuxer can only work for files with very similar characteristics.
Jan 11 17:51:12 <Cigaes>	With "playlist support", users may want to mix very different files.
Jan 11 17:51:26 <Compn>	saste / ubitux / Cigaes : http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/94761
Jan 11 17:51:40 <Compn>	is the patch from 2009
Jan 11 17:52:47 <ubitux>	i'd better have ordered chapters in mkv…
Jan 11 17:52:52 <Compn>	i dont know if its the right thing.
Jan 11 17:52:59 <saste>	ah: ffmpeg -conc -i audio1,audio2,audio3 audiofull
Jan 11 17:53:02 <Compn>	right api or whatever. at least its something
Jan 11 17:53:06 <j-b>	I still have bounties for FFmpeg, btw, notably on DTS-HD and AAC-encoder
Jan 11 17:53:12 <saste>	seems what beastd  was talking about
Jan 11 17:53:40 <saste>	about AAC encoding, any news from the epic ticket's guys?
Jan 11 17:53:43 <wm4>	ubitux: all what's needed is exporting the ordered chapters info
Jan 11 17:53:52 <Compn>	saste : well, i think beastd wants ffmpeg concat to be as easy as mencoders' multiple file support.
Jan 11 17:53:59 <Cigaes>	(the "-conc -i 1,3,3" syntax looks like it will lead to yet another level of escaping madness)
Jan 11 17:54:00 <ubitux>	wm4: don't we already?
Jan 11 17:54:05 <wm4>	ubitux: no
Jan 11 17:54:09 <ubitux>	maybe not enough information in the chapters?
Jan 11 17:54:25 <wm4>	I doubt it
Jan 11 17:54:26 *	llogan (~llogan <at> pdpc/supporter/student/pasteeater) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 17:54:33 <Compn>	lou is here :)
Jan 11 17:54:46 <wm4>	and you need a nice/fast way to scan for segment files too
Jan 11 17:54:53 <llogan>	ok. now we can start....
Jan 11 17:55:05 <nevcairiel>	even if the information was exported, i'm not sure you could make it play ordered chapter files seamlessly without a lot of magic in user code as well
Jan 11 17:55:10 <wm4>	also, what's so hard about concatenating arbitrary files?
Jan 11 17:55:10 <Compn>	wm4 : whats mplayer2's mkv ordered chapter support look like ?
Jan 11 17:55:22 <llogan>	i forgot i was -9 UTC...not -8. damn it
Jan 11 17:55:27 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: can ordered chapters point to files with different codecs?
Jan 11 17:55:29 <beastd>	i think my concern was captured closely enough. and IIRC mencoder has a rather intuitive interface for concat but lots of other problems. anyway extending the CLI syntax can be very challenging
Jan 11 17:55:31 <ubitux>	wm4: AVChapter seems to have id, timestamps, and metadata
Jan 11 17:55:44 <ubitux>	and our mkv demuxer seems to create them
Jan 11 17:55:53 <saste>	beastd, mind to show an example?
Jan 11 17:56:03 <nevcairiel>	Cigaes: the spec doesnt necessarily disallow it, but it doesnt work in any implementation today, so...
Jan 11 17:56:04 <saste>	(about the mencoder syntax)
Jan 11 17:56:25 <wm4>	ubitux: does it export segment id? does it support editions in any way?
Jan 11 17:56:26 <nevcairiel>	(the "spec" really doesn't define many details about the whole process)
Jan 11 17:56:44 <ubitux>	wm4: i can't tell, sorry
Jan 11 17:56:45 <wm4>	also, ordered chapters are an abomination
Jan 11 17:56:52 <wm4>	(just saying)
Jan 11 17:57:05 <Compn>	saste : mencoder -vf scale=640:480 file1.rm file2.avi file3.mpg -oac lavc -ovc xvid -o file.avi  , will make one output file , all the same resolution and codec. its very easy to hand write , no escaping command lines, no brackets or commas...
Jan 11 17:57:07 <ubitux>	it's somehow related to the mov edit list btw
Jan 11 17:57:08 <Cigaes>	nevcairiel: then it looks like what I am implementing in the concat demuxer;
Jan 11 17:57:12 <nevcairiel>	its not that terrible, at least it wouldnt be if it was documented somewhere
Jan 11 17:57:27 <Cigaes>	for now it is a proof of concept, but once it is done it can be shared with other formats.
Jan 11 17:57:28 <michaelni>	llogan, beastd when the concat/playlist discussion finishes, can you update us on the server backup status ? (i think we still need a system that does full backups of both our servers and each time sends on email or so to either ML or root so we notice if something makes it stop working)
Jan 11 17:57:40 <nevcairiel>	trying to reverse engineer how haalis thing handles certain weird files was annoying =p
Jan 11 17:58:24 <wm4>	Compn: yeah, I never understood why weird fragile things like the concat demuxer are needed...
Jan 11 17:58:33 <Compn>	right
Jan 11 17:59:50 <saste>	wm4, concat demuxer was needed, at least until we don't have proper playlist support
Jan 11 18:00:10 <wm4>	so you admit it was a hack because ffmpeg.c is too much of a hack?
Jan 11 18:00:28 <beastd>	Please pardon me. Will need to leave in now.
Jan 11 18:00:51 <saste>	wm4, it makes sense to implement it as a component for library users, not only for ffmpeg.c
Jan 11 18:01:17 <wm4>	I myself am annoyed that a demuxer might suddenly open random files I didn't ask it to open
Jan 11 18:01:28 <wm4>	it might even be a security issue
Jan 11 18:01:34 <Compn>	what demuxer does that wm4 ?
Jan 11 18:01:41 <wm4>	Compn: concat
Jan 11 18:01:48 <saste>	wm4, you can disable it from the build if it annoys you
Jan 11 18:01:52 <Compn>	i mean, how would that happen wm4 ?
Jan 11 18:02:03 <kriegerod>	what's wrong with concat demuxer? it does its job in specific required manner, and fits in demuxer interface. Its fragileness is consequence of its requirement to work without reencoding.
Jan 11 18:02:05 <wm4>	saste: can I make distros to disable it?
Jan 11 18:02:31 <Compn>	concat is for copying video , got it
Jan 11 18:02:45 <Compn>	mencoder would do it, but also would break most of the time when copying video in containers
Jan 11 18:02:50 <Compn>	because it wasnt precise
Jan 11 18:02:50 <Cigaes>	kriegerod: it still lacks a few consistency checks, like matching streams in different order from different files.
Jan 11 18:03:07 *	kierank (uid5955 <at> gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ooeiaqndiqxjeuob) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 18:03:22 *	pross-au has quit (Quit: Z)
Jan 11 18:03:24 *	beastd has quit (Quit: So many things, so little time...)
Jan 11 18:03:55 <Compn>	i have to go soon as well.
Jan 11 18:04:35 <llogan>	since trac moved remote backups are basically non-existant because, AFAIK, i do not have permissions to make the database dump and/or the daily local database dumps have not occurred last time i checked.
Jan 11 18:05:13 <llogan>	unfortunately, i do not have the resources to perform daily, full backups of the whole machine
Jan 11 18:05:25 <michaelni>	llogan, ok, tell me after the meeting what permissions you need
Jan 11 18:06:03 <saste>	llogan, you could run a backup script from another ffmpeg server
Jan 11 18:06:51 <llogan>	saste: which server? i do not think the web host has enough drive space, IIRC
Jan 11 18:07:01 <michaelni>	also we need full backups, my problem ironically is not that i lack diskspace or net bandwidth but iam too scetterbrained so i know i will forget doing them
Jan 11 18:07:16 <saste>	llogan, ok, was only an idea
Jan 11 18:07:24 <saste>	michaelni, script and conquer
Jan 11 18:07:26 <llogan>	saste: it was a good idea
Jan 11 18:07:56 <llogan>	michaelni: (ana)cron and rsync might be good enough.
Jan 11 18:08:09 <Cigaes>	llogan: what kind of rsync setup?
Jan 11 18:09:46 <llogan>	Cigaes: good question. daily/weekly/monthly? depends on the required complexity i guess. currently i'm doing irregular backups with duplicity.
Jan 11 18:10:13 <Cigaes>	llogan: I was asking more about the --delete-* kind of options. rsync alone is not suitable for a backup,
Jan 11 18:10:32 <Cigaes>	since it will either leave obsolete files there or delete files that may need to be restoring later.
Jan 11 18:11:28 <llogan>	that's one reason i am using duplicity, but rsync was just a more simple recommendation (more for the trac database file for example)
Jan 11 18:12:02 *	michaelni would be using tar+*zip+(gpg)+ssh
Jan 11 18:12:36 <Cigaes>	llogan: rsync can do the work like duplicity, provided the correct options are chosen. rsnapshot, for example, is a good script to do that.
Jan 11 18:13:03 <llogan>	i will unvolunteer myself from the backups. i do not have to time, resources, or experience to do an adequate job
Jan 11 18:14:09 <michaelni>	llogan, ok, anyone else who wants to volunteer ?
Jan 11 18:14:43 <michaelni>	note beastd didnt ever really volunteer, he just did some work on it ...
Jan 11 18:14:49 <saste>	michaelni, maybe ask on mailing-list or in private mails
Jan 11 18:15:39 <saste>	should we move to point 2.?
Jan 11 18:15:46 <michaelni>	saste, ok, ok
Jan 11 18:15:57 <llogan>	is trac also on a VPS or VM or something? if so can images be made too?
Jan 11 18:16:23 <Cigaes>	saste: before moving to point 2, I may mention a few more projects.
Jan 11 18:16:34 <michaelni>	llogan, trac is on a virtual machine
Jan 11 18:16:36 <Cigaes>	Regarding lavfi:
Jan 11 18:16:43 <saste>	Cigaes, sure (I'm just a bit worried that we run out of time)
Jan 11 18:17:12 <Cigaes>	The pull-based nature of EOF annoys me. I am thinking of adding some kind of filter_message() method along with filter_frame(),
Jan 11 18:17:29 <Cigaes>	to let the library process EOF and more in a push-based manner.
Jan 11 18:17:46 <Cigaes>	One of the benefits would be to have a timestamp for EOF, and therefore a duration for the last frame.
Jan 11 18:18:02 <michaelni>	saste, note for the future, if these meetings become too long, maybe they should be split in technical / non technical or something
Jan 11 18:18:12 <michaelni>	or maybe more frequent so theres less to discuss
Jan 11 18:18:17 <Cigaes>	Regarding network:
Jan 11 18:18:26 <j-b>	and you should use a collaborative note
Jan 11 18:18:37 <saste>	michaelni, probably
Jan 11 18:18:52 <saste>	this is the second meeting in one year
Jan 11 18:18:52 <Cigaes>	The recent discussion on the ML makes me want to implement some kind of global solution
Jan 11 18:19:06 <Cigaes>	for protocols that require subprotocols.
Jan 11 18:19:12 <saste>	j-b, do you suggest a specific platform/software for that?
Jan 11 18:19:57 <saste>	Cigaes, about EOF in lavfi, yes although maybe mailing-list is a better place where to discuss it
Jan 11 18:20:42 <Cigaes>	saste: I do not want to annoy people on the mailing list with ideas that are just maturating.
Jan 11 18:20:54 <Cigaes>	I will post something once I have at least a proof of concept.
Jan 11 18:21:08 <j-b>	saste: sure, etherpad.
Jan 11 18:21:17 <j-b>	saste: it's live, and allows everyone to edit
Jan 11 18:21:37 <saste>	j-b, noted for the next time
Jan 11 18:21:56 <saste>	but if someone wants to create a shared document right now, he's welcome
Jan 11 18:22:26 <j-b>	https://etherpad.mozilla.org/MmPk7vQSVT
Jan 11 18:22:26 <saste>	Cigaes, ok and thanks
Jan 11 18:23:16 <j-b>	saste: something like that
Jan 11 18:23:28 <j-b>	saste: it avoids having the load on only one person
Jan 11 18:24:21 <saste>	j-b, thx
Jan 11 18:24:54 <saste>	second point: 2. crowdfunding, donation system improvements, merchandising etc.
Jan 11 18:25:17 <saste>	about crowdfunding, it was discussed in the previous meeting and nothing has been done in the meanwhile
Jan 11 18:25:57 <saste>	crowdfunding and donations can have different targets
Jan 11 18:26:28 <saste>	donations are for generic donations to the whole project, while crowdfunding seems more oriented for specific  features development
Jan 11 18:26:58 <saste>	basically from what i can see we lack developers wanting to create such a project
Jan 11 18:27:21 <kriegerod>	which project?
Jan 11 18:27:44 <michaelni>	improve / maintain ffserver would be a random example :)
Jan 11 18:27:52 <saste>	kriegerod, ffmpeg, or a specific feature implementation project
Jan 11 18:28:19 <saste>	we had a few platform proposals the last time and in several discussions on m-l, irc, rl
Jan 11 18:28:23 <kriegerod>	well, crowdfunding is about having idea and having donated money to implement the idea
Jan 11 18:28:41 <saste>	kickstart, indiego, freedomsponsor and other ones i forgot about
Jan 11 18:28:41 <kriegerod>	when these two are there, i think it would be no problem to find implementor(s)
Jan 11 18:28:54 <rmklp>	I think to attract someone to pay a certain amount in a crowd-funding project a well-defined goal is crucial for the success.
Jan 11 18:29:03 <saste>	kriegerod, no in practice we never had volunteers for doing that
Jan 11 18:29:16 <rmklp>	just improving ffserver will not work IMHO
Jan 11 18:29:18 <llogan>	saste: there was an additional one i mentioned that gimp is/was using too but i forgot the name and i'm not at my ususal machine
Jan 11 18:29:30 <kriegerod>	saste: for doing what and for which amount of money? that's important
Jan 11 18:29:33 <saste>	what i propose is to make projects involving at least two developers
Jan 11 18:29:42 <llogan>	i can make a wiki page for crowdfunding ideas if that could be useful
Jan 11 18:29:53 <saste>	i'd like to do that for implementing DVD reading support, and/or high-level scripting
Jan 11 18:30:02 <michaelni>	rmklp, maybe "fix all ffserver bugs that where on trac at date X"
Jan 11 18:30:13 <saste>	the principle is that i don't find enough motivation if i have to do it alone, but i could if i have a partner for it
Jan 11 18:30:23 <saste>	it should also be more fun for the involved developers
Jan 11 18:30:48 <llogan>	something along the lines of rht GSoC ideas page might be helpful.
Jan 11 18:30:55 <saste>	if we manage to find volunteers for this, then we may create a page on the website listing the on-going projects
Jan 11 18:30:58 <llogan>	s/rht/the
Jan 11 18:31:22 <wm4>	how do you plan to handle DVD reading technically?
Jan 11 18:31:35 <wm4>	or maybe that's offtopic right now
Jan 11 18:31:54 <saste>	wm4, I did some work about it, but it was not still working
Jan 11 18:31:54 <rmklp>	michaelni: probably. I don't know how many companies use ffserver commercially, though.
Jan 11 18:32:27 <saste>	it was a dvd reader, i can send you the thread link later in case you're interested
Jan 11 18:32:41 <wm4>	somewhat
Jan 11 18:32:49 <wm4>	though I doubt it'll be useful for playback use
Jan 11 18:33:07 <saste>	wm4, main objective and target would be backup transcoding of DVD
Jan 11 18:33:37 <rmklp>	michaelni: If the goal is to raise money then there are probably projects that would attract more companies (aac encoder, fast j2k encoder to name two which I guess there will be interest for)
Jan 11 18:34:06 <llogan>	RFC for crowdfunding ideas on -devel might get the ball rolling
Jan 11 18:34:32 <saste>	rmklp, the problem is that usually a single company is not willing to sponsor the whole project
Jan 11 18:34:41 <llogan>	or maybe j-b can describe their process/experience
Jan 11 18:35:08 <rmklp>	saste: yes, of course. I thought we are talking about crowd funding.
Jan 11 18:35:26 <j-b>	llogan: CrowdFunding is very hard to do for people like us
Jan 11 18:35:35 <michaelni>	rmklp, to raise more money making the description more spicy wth hls, rtmp, html5 should attract more interrest compared to "fixing issues"
Jan 11 18:35:41 <j-b>	llogan: a kind of bounty system would be more clever, IMHO
Jan 11 18:35:47 <rmklp>	saste: there was another crowd funding platform that I sent you an email about. one that was specialized on open source. I can'tr find it right now.
Jan 11 18:36:10 <rmklp>	https://www.bountysource.com/
Jan 11 18:36:14 <saste>	j-b, we have a rudimental form of bounty system
Jan 11 18:36:18 <llogan>	j-b: your VLC metro (IIRC) project seemed fairly successful to me
Jan 11 18:36:25 <saste>	we add the tag "bounty" to a ticket
Jan 11 18:36:33 <j-b>	llogan: fairly not.
Jan 11 18:36:40 <j-b>	llogan: and we targetted normal users
Jan 11 18:36:44 <saste>	but this is not very practical/effective, if not for small projects/bugfixes
Jan 11 18:36:55 <j-b>	saste: this is not a correct way
Jan 11 18:37:10 <saste>	we need a platform to coordinate several donors
Jan 11 18:37:29 <saste>	assuming we have some competent developers wanting to propose a project
Jan 11 18:37:32 <j-b>	yes, like bountysource
Jan 11 18:37:37 <rmklp>	yes and at first glance bountysource looks ok
Jan 11 18:37:50 <j-b>	it's not proper crowdsourcing
Jan 11 18:37:54 <kierank>	many companies won't do bountysource in public
Jan 11 18:37:56 <j-b>	but it's more what you'd need
Jan 11 18:38:22 <kierank>	mainly because for differing reasons they need to hide they are using ffmpeg
Jan 11 18:38:54 <rmklp>	kierank: maybe the big ones won't but I believe small ones will and I guess there are hundreds of smaller ones building products on top of ffmpeg
Jan 11 18:38:59 <kierank>	and because bounties are an indeirect form of expenditure
Jan 11 18:39:04 <saste>	kierank, most ffmpeg users are service providers, AFAIK
Jan 11 18:39:22 <kierank>	yeah and they need to hide the fact that their service is a script on top of ffmpeg
Jan 11 18:39:22 <saste>	so the fact that they're using or contributing to ffmpeg shouldn't hurt them
Jan 11 18:39:41 <llogan>	i agree with kierank about many of them wanting to hide
Jan 11 18:39:57 <kierank>	the others (e.g BBC) need to hide for different reasons
Jan 11 18:40:47 <saste>	can bountysource donations be anonymous?
Jan 11 18:40:47 <rmklp>	I know of sponsors who explicitly want to be known as ffmpeg sponsors
Jan 11 18:41:15 <saste>	rmklp, we discussed about a sponsor page, still never was done
Jan 11 18:41:27 <kierank>	rmklp: wait for marketing to find out the new super patented technology that the company claimed to invent is just ffmpeg
Jan 11 18:41:30 <saste>	i guess for lack of interest/motivation/manpower/you name it
Jan 11 18:41:32 <kierank>	and that will get quashed easily
Jan 11 18:42:44 <michaelni>	saste, it seems they can be annoymous, i see a "Anonymous" at https://www.bountysource.com/fundraisers/506-help-make-zoneminder-better/backers for example
Jan 11 18:43:12 <rmklp>	kierank: yes those exist but e.g. at least 2, probably three of the yadif sponsors don't fall into that category. there are a number of companies who build bigger applications on top of ffmpeg and who want to be known as "fair" commercial open source users (whatever that is) 
Jan 11 18:43:28 <saste>	rmklp: the idea was to have a sort of sponsor advertised on the website, in a "Sponsors" page or something
Jan 11 18:43:30 <rmklp>	and are willing to pay money
Jan 11 18:43:43 <kierank>	there is money available for mxf
Jan 11 18:43:47 <kierank>	always is...
Jan 11 18:43:50 <saste>	I'm not of any company willing to do that
Jan 11 18:43:54 <saste>	ATM
Jan 11 18:44:07 <saste>	indeed most donations are from private users
Jan 11 18:44:13 <rmklp>	you mean something along the lines of gold, silver, bronzw sponsor? 
Jan 11 18:44:24 <saste>	rmklp, yes, kind of
Jan 11 18:45:21 <rmklp>	saste: IMHO the key is to give them an easy package (defined price, conditions) that they can choose. if they have to think how they can sponsor, it will probably not happen. 
Jan 11 18:45:42 <saste>	rmklp, sure
Jan 11 18:45:46 <kierank>	certainly I can ask encoding.com and zencoder and probably others
Jan 11 18:46:34 <rmklp>	michael mentioned something from, I think, a linux distro where they had conditions for becoming a gold/silver/bronze sponsor and those were based on money and company size and I think that is a good approach.
Jan 11 18:47:04 <saste>	maybe something like http://xbmc.org/
Jan 11 18:47:06 <rmklp>	I can talk to the companies I was in touch with for the yadif sponsoring and ask them as soon as there are conditions.
Jan 11 18:47:22 <rmklp>	and probably some more in the future.
Jan 11 18:48:06 <saste>	rmklp, yes thanks
Jan 11 18:48:07 <michaelni>	rmklp, i meant http://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_Foundation
Jan 11 18:48:17 *	iive (~iive <at> unaffiliated/iive) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 18:49:10 <j-b>	Sorry, to ask, but before asking for money, do you have enough people to "eat" this money?
Jan 11 18:49:22 <saste>	the other problem is that we don't have a formal entity representing the project, so that could be from problematic to impossible
Jan 11 18:49:48 <saste>	j-b, right now we got around 2500-3000$ in 1,5 years of donations from SPI
Jan 11 18:49:58 <saste>	we spent around 500$
Jan 11 18:50:16 <saste>	so no for the moment we don't have much money need
Jan 11 18:50:37 <michaelni>	saste, pay new hw for all devels who need it
Jan 11 18:50:38 <saste>	what we could spend the money for: paying travel tickets to attend events, paying for hw
Jan 11 18:51:06 <saste>	also offer some opportunity to developers to pay some expenses when doing ffmpeg development
Jan 11 18:51:19 <saste>	but this is probably better addressed with bounties
Jan 11 18:51:34 <rmklp>	saste: yes, the legal entity thing is a big one and probably the most work
Jan 11 18:52:00 <llogan>	is fate missing any hardwares we can buy?
Jan 11 18:52:36 *	michaelni has stuff laying around he wanted to install fate on but didnt yet have time
Jan 11 18:53:40 <saste>	about donations, SPI will proably migrate to a different pay-by-credit-card system (current one if Pay&Pledge)
Jan 11 18:54:06 <saste>	and they're moving to have paypal support for Debian donations, if that work that will be extended to other associate projects as well
Jan 11 18:54:06 <michaelni>	or pay someone to update and maintain fateserver for example as a random small thing, that someone should do and that would only be a few hours work so could easily be payed for if we had a few k
Jan 11 18:55:34 <kierank>	I don't know if ubitux, BBB, smarter and others who write ASM would be interested in getting my AVX2 server colocated somewhere?
Jan 11 18:55:49 <kierank>	I have it lying around doing nothing in storage at the moment
Jan 11 18:56:10 <ubitux>	no particular interest myself in it right now
Jan 11 18:56:22 <llogan>	feel free to ask on -devel too
Jan 11 18:56:27 <rmklp>	saste: do you know if anyone has done research on the options regarding the legal entity thing? wasn't ffmtech founded for that purpose and would it fulfill it legally, if there were no other problems with it.
Jan 11 18:57:00 <saste>	rmklp, the main issue with ffmtech, apart the fork thing, was the no-profit status
Jan 11 18:57:23 <saste>	which was never recognized and was pending since the organization was created
Jan 11 18:57:32 <saste>	i don't know what's the current status
Jan 11 18:57:33 <llogan>	what is the status on ffmtech? does it still exist?
Jan 11 18:57:56 <saste>	llogan, you can check it by yourself: http://www.ffmtech.org/
Jan 11 18:58:04 <rmklp>	judjing by what diego wrote to me just recently, very much so.
Jan 11 18:58:05 <smarter>	I'm not concerned about AVX2 yet, there's plenty to do before that :)
Jan 11 18:58:37 <kierank>	smarter: useful for benchmarking on modern hardware though
Jan 11 18:59:17 <llogan>	saste: are there any FFmpeg devs involved?
Jan 11 18:59:35 <saste>	llogan, reimar is still part of the board i think
Jan 11 18:59:41 <rmklp>	I though at least Reimar was on their board
Jan 11 19:01:06 <llogan>	http://ffmtech.org/board.html
Jan 11 19:01:32 <llogan>	shall we move on to the next topic?
Jan 11 19:01:38 <rmklp>	Another hypothetical question: Is there anyone interested in doing this differently, if the non-profit way does not work, i.e. found a company that offers stuff around ffmpeg, like JBoss inc. did for the jboss application server? Disclaimer: I am not interested in being part of this. I am merely listing options.
Jan 11 19:02:38 <kierank>	That's not easy because there's a lot of things to deal with
Jan 11 19:02:38 <saste>	michaelni, about small maintenance tasks, we have some donation money we could spend on that, if we have a proposal
Jan 11 19:02:46 <kierank>	rmklp: on site visits, patents, etc
Jan 11 19:02:49 <rmklp>	but may be completely not what people here want but it is a theoretical option, requiring a lot of work
Jan 11 19:03:01 <rmklp>	kierank: absolutely
Jan 11 19:03:09 <kierank>	the reality is people who choose ffmpeg do it because they have no money anyway
Jan 11 19:03:18 <kierank>	or are competent enough to do things themselves
Jan 11 19:03:46 <rmklp>	kierank: there may be some that match that description but there are others. But I don't have numbers.
Jan 11 19:04:43 <rmklp>	I would guess that there are a lot of api users out there who would even pay for support but of course I might be wrong. I just know I would (depending on the price).
Jan 11 19:05:14 <kierank>	API users are orders of magnitude lower than ffmpeg users
Jan 11 19:05:31 <kierank>	since it's easier to write scripts around ffmpeg than to try and understand the api
Jan 11 19:05:38 <rmklp>	I am not saying this would become a 500M enterprise like jboss but ffmpeg is used by a lot of companies as a library in products
Jan 11 19:06:20 <rmklp>	you are focusing on transcoding. there are tons of other uses of the library.
Jan 11 19:06:39 <rmklp>	but of course you are right.
Jan 11 19:06:58 <kierank>	the biggest use of ffmpeg by far is transcoding
Jan 11 19:07:14 <wm4>	often I think it focuses on transcoding too much...
Jan 11 19:07:23 <wm4>	the library, at least
Jan 11 19:07:24 <kierank>	direct use of ffmepg I mean
Jan 11 19:07:43 <wm4>	yeah, ffmpeg.c isn't much of use for other things
Jan 11 19:08:32 <kriegerod>	rmklp, your idea of company doing ffmpeg support is viable. I have seen there are some such companies around GStreamer, e.g. http://www.centricular.com/, also some theirs devs are at Collabora, which is a company of that sort
Jan 11 19:08:53 <rmklp>	yes but if you would get just 20 companies that use ffmpeg in players, analysis software etc. to pay 1000$ a year for sponsoring or a little higher priority in support, you would certainly increase the generated money considerably compared to knwo and that is not very optimistic.
Jan 11 19:10:10 <rmklp>	as I said, I have so far only talked to a handful of fellow companies that develop software that uses ffmpeg as a library and more than half seemed open to something like that.
Jan 11 19:10:46 <kierank>	the number of companies that use ffmpeg as a library is quite small imo
Jan 11 19:10:53 <rmklp>	but it needs a lot of work an dedication and has a lot of potential for bad things 
Jan 11 19:11:13 <kierank>	most of the mainstream features work well
Jan 11 19:11:19 <kierank>	people will pay money for niche stuff
Jan 11 19:11:29 <kierank>	(e.g mxf) but the problem with niche stuff is there are few people to do it
Jan 11 19:11:29 <michaelni>	i think we should provide the option for companies who want to sponsor ffmpeg to do so
Jan 11 19:11:50 <kierank>	michaelni: there have to be pacakages
Jan 11 19:11:59 <kierank>	and some clear message as to where money is going
Jan 11 19:12:02 <saste>	or in alternative to pay for bounties, which would avoid the need for a formal entity/company behind it
Jan 11 19:12:11 <michaelni>	kierank, money goes to SPI-ffmpeg
Jan 11 19:12:18 <kierank>	michaelni: i mean what for
Jan 11 19:12:37 <kierank>	michaelni: people show this to their managers
Jan 11 19:12:55 <kierank>	managers don't give a shit about SPI. they care about the money going to things which help the project (hw, fate etc)
Jan 11 19:13:00 <saste>	michaelni, so it would be DONOR -> SPI -> CONTRIBUTOR
Jan 11 19:13:19 <saste>	the problem is that we need approval from the SPI treasurer
Jan 11 19:13:20 <rmklp>	kierank: I think I know companies who would pay just to get on the list of companies that support ffmpeg regardless of where the money goes but it is of course better to write something about that
Jan 11 19:13:20 <michaelni>	kierank, yes, we would need a list
Jan 11 19:13:46 <michaelni>	saste, can we try to pay some small development via SPI to see if this is possible or not ?
Jan 11 19:13:58 <saste>	michaelni, i think it is already possible
Jan 11 19:14:10 <saste>	but it is decided on a case-by-case basis
Jan 11 19:14:19 <rmklp>	by SPI
Jan 11 19:14:20 <rmklp>	?
Jan 11 19:14:34 <saste>	SPI is a non-profit, and thus must be very careful about how the money is spent
Jan 11 19:15:06 <saste>	rmklp, yes, basically when we decide about a refund request, it must be approved by the SPI treasurer
Jan 11 19:15:15 <saste>	so we have no direct control over the donation money
Jan 11 19:15:32 <rmklp>	if that is only a theoretical hurdle and easy in practice, it would be a good thing. what do you think?
Jan 11 19:15:56 <saste>	rmklp, i think it can be done for internal developments
Jan 11 19:16:30 <saste>	but in case it is a company requesting some work, we can't go through SPI (in that case it would be better to use an independent bounty platform)
Jan 11 19:16:56 <saste>	otherwise you can't guarantee the company that the donated money will be spent for the task
Jan 11 19:18:25 <rmklp>	legally doing something like a bountysource project is a contract. do you know, how in the case of ffmpeg would be the parties? would have to be the individual developers who pledge to implement the feature, wouldn't it?
Jan 11 19:18:38 <rmklp>	s/how/who
Jan 11 19:19:06 <saste>	rmklp, yes, but in that case it is a matter between individual ffmpeg developers and the pledgers/donors
Jan 11 19:19:15 <saste>	ffmpeg as a formal entity is not involved at all
Jan 11 19:19:33 <saste>	indeed the developers could also not be ffmpeg developers at all
Jan 11 19:20:49 <saste>	about merchandising we basically have the same issues, lacking a formal entity
Jan 11 19:20:55 <saste>	but I might be wrong
Jan 11 19:22:14 <rmklp>	hypothetical example just for understanding: If I thought having a fast j2k encoder that supports a certain pixel format would be a project that could generate some money, I would try to convince someone like michael to offer that and he would say, he needed 20000 dollars for the implementation and then would open the bountysource project?
Jan 11 19:22:28 <saste>	rmklp, yes
Jan 11 19:22:55 <saste>	or the other way around, random developer propose a task, and an individual/company fund it in case of interest
Jan 11 19:23:15 <rmklp>	yes.
Jan 11 19:24:43 <rmklp>	so what is going to happen now? Someone is going to "test" paying a developer via SPI to find out if that works? What else? Is someone going to propose a sponsorship program?
Jan 11 19:25:06 <saste>	rmklp, this is point 3. development task proposals
Jan 11 19:25:13 <saste>	should we go on?
Jan 11 19:25:45 <rmklp>	saste: I did not understand that. how is it related to 3.?
Jan 11 19:25:59 <saste>	also we will probably discuss the topic on the mailing-list, to see if there are volunteers for setting up bounty projects
Jan 11 19:26:14 <rmklp>	ok
Jan 11 19:26:30 <saste>	rmklp, > Someone is going to "test" paying a developer via SPI to find out if that works?
Jan 11 19:26:56 <saste>	right now we have 2K$ of donated money, so maybe it is not enough for a complex project
Jan 11 19:27:14 <saste>	(and we should probably spend that money for other stuff, like travel refunds)
Jan 11 19:27:28 <rmklp>	once yadif is committed it will be a bit more
Jan 11 19:28:22 <saste>	but that works that a developer proposes a funded task, then it is discussed and approved on list and finally the money is sent if approved by SPI
Jan 11 19:28:39 <rmklp>	ok
Jan 11 19:28:56 <saste>	to follow that path we first need a contributor proposing the task
Jan 11 19:29:54 <saste>	should we skip to point 3.?
Jan 11 19:31:11 <saste>	so it is: 3. development task proposals
Jan 11 19:31:17 <kierank>	does that include gsoc?
Jan 11 19:31:42 <saste>	kierank, also
Jan 11 19:31:57 <saste>	although I mostly intended that as "funded development task proposals"
Jan 11 19:32:15 <saste>	about gsoc, I'm not sure we will be accepted for gsoc even this year
Jan 11 19:32:40 <saste>	indeed i'm not even sure it is a good idea to apply
Jan 11 19:32:53 <kierank>	saste: afaik google are ok with ffmpeg/libav now
Jan 11 19:33:30 <saste>	kierank, good to know
Jan 11 19:34:42 <kriegerod>	couple of days ago on maillist there was a request for DVB subtitles support. I said i'll check that, but i'm ok if anybody else takes it, or if we try this issue as a polygon to experiment with above discussed things
Jan 11 19:34:56 <saste>	we talked about an internal ffmpeg summer of code, but we probably lack the organization/money
Jan 11 19:35:29 <saste>	we could do it together with videolan if there is some interest and it's not too complicate for them
Jan 11 19:35:41 <saste>	kriegerod, sure
Jan 11 19:35:53 <saste>	about that, i also want to propose some candidate funding tasks
Jan 11 19:36:09 <saste>	namely: DVD reading support, and high-level scripting binding
Jan 11 19:36:25 <saste>	but: I only do that if I find a partner to work with me
Jan 11 19:36:28 <kierank>	dvd reading?
Jan 11 19:36:28 <kierank>	wow
Jan 11 19:36:40 <kierank>	someone's crazy :)
Jan 11 19:37:18 <j-b>	kierank: I don't know where you get this information from, tbh
Jan 11 19:37:35 <kierank>	j-b: mentor summit
Jan 11 19:37:37 <kierank>	av500 asked
Jan 11 19:37:45 <kierank>	VLC is not in a good position however
Jan 11 19:37:46 <j-b>	like they said last year
Jan 11 19:37:56 <j-b>	kierank: we won't apply, anyway
Jan 11 19:38:12 <j-b>	kierank: bored of this PC bullshit
Jan 11 19:39:20 <saste>	anyway, more proposals?
Jan 11 19:40:01 <saste>	but discussion and proposals can go on on other channels...
Jan 11 19:40:39 <saste>	next point?
Jan 11 19:41:02 <kierank>	j2k encoder is probably the only large thing missing from the pro perspective, as much as i hate j2k
Jan 11 19:41:21 <saste>	kierank, would you work on that?
Jan 11 19:41:33 <kierank>	no, don't have time
Jan 11 19:41:39 <llogan>	saste: i'm personally not excited about GSoC
Jan 11 19:41:57 *	rmklp has quit (Quit: rmklp)
Jan 11 19:42:06 <saste>	kierank, or can you find someone who will?
Jan 11 19:42:22 <kierank>	don't think so
Jan 11 19:43:17 <saste>	if there is not anything else we can go to the next and last point
Jan 11 19:43:33 <saste>	4. miscellanea
Jan 11 19:43:55 <saste>	ubitux, any news about the website restyling?
Jan 11 19:44:34 <ubitux>	not much progress, but i'll keep you up-to-date
Jan 11 19:44:51 <saste>	ubitux, mh, okay
Jan 11 19:44:57 <michaelni>	someone should contact apple and ask them about details / bug reports of the prores issues they mentioned on that page
Jan 11 19:45:10 <llogan>	what's this on the web site restyling?
Jan 11 19:45:55 <ubitux>	llogan: http://db0.galo.pe/ffmpeg-web/htdocs/
Jan 11 19:46:11 <ubitux>	"WIP"
Jan 11 19:46:19 <llogan>	i am unaware of any work to update the site
Jan 11 19:46:21 <saste>	also it would be nice if we add a goodies section
Jan 11 19:46:48 <saste>	with designs we collected from past logo contests
Jan 11 19:46:58 <saste>	i'll probably try to find some time about that
Jan 11 19:47:00 <llogan>	who is doing the redesign?
Jan 11 19:47:12 <saste>	we should also define the license of the content
Jan 11 19:47:33 <saste>	but if someone wants to do that he's welcome
Jan 11 19:47:51 <michaelni>	goodies section maybe best on the wiki so work on it can be shared with more people
Jan 11 19:48:14 <saste>	michaelni, that works for me as well
Jan 11 19:48:29 <saste>	although it would have more visibility on the official website
Jan 11 19:48:38 <saste>	btw what's the license of the wiki content?
Jan 11 19:48:43 <saste>	what if we add artwork?
Jan 11 19:48:43 <michaelni>	the official site could link to the wiki
Jan 11 19:49:16 <llogan>	The materials within the Community Contributed Documentation section of the FFmpeg Wiki are released under the ​Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License.
Jan 11 19:49:49 <saste>	about logo contests, did we specify the required license?
Jan 11 19:49:59 <ubitux>	llogan: db0 on #ffmpeg-devel
Jan 11 19:50:13 <saste>	otherwise we'll need to get in touch directly with the various contributors
Jan 11 19:50:34 <saste>	also herve flores suggested to adopt a commercial license for artwork/logos
Jan 11 19:50:36 <llogan>	ubitux: i don't know who that is
Jan 11 19:51:10 <ubitux>	someone i know
Jan 11 19:51:18 <ubitux>	not involved in ffmpeg developement so far
Jan 11 19:51:22 <ubitux>	except for this
Jan 11 19:52:03 <saste>	other misc topics?
Jan 11 19:52:09 <llogan>	i don't prefer the dark look but i guess we can see how it turns out
Jan 11 19:53:55 <michaelni>	what shall we do with libavfilter.net, libavcodec.net, libavutil.net, libswresample.net and others ?
Jan 11 19:54:08 <michaelni>	we are in control of them but they cost money
Jan 11 19:54:11 <llogan>	saste: no specific logo license has been selected IIRC for submissions
Jan 11 19:54:21 <llogan>	michaelni: dump them.
Jan 11 19:55:01 <saste>	michaelni, same from me, if we don't have appealing reasons to keep them
Jan 11 19:55:30 <saste>	is someone planning to attend some FLOSS event this year?
Jan 11 19:55:47 <michaelni>	if noone wants to use them (for ffmpeg stuff) and noone wants to sponsor it then ill let them expire
Jan 11 19:56:48 <saste>	i'll probably try to attend some if we are enough to man an ffmpeg booth
Jan 11 19:57:16 <saste>	fosdem is probably too close, so the next viable event is probably linuxtag
Jan 11 19:57:33 <llogan>	i bet beastd will go to that
Jan 11 19:57:38 <llogan>	maybe thilo too
Jan 11 19:57:42 *	j-b (~jb <at> videolan/developer/j-b) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 19:58:24 <saste>	llogan, part of the donation money could be spent for paying (at least part) of the travel tickets
Jan 11 19:59:21 <saste>	if there is nothing more we can close the meeting
Jan 11 20:00:06 *	rmklp (~krueger <at> ip-178-200-241-251.unitymediagroup.de) has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 20:00:33 <llogan>	saste: thanks for organizing and herding cats
Jan 11 20:00:46 <saste>	michaelni, anything else?
Jan 11 20:01:18 <michaelni>	not really, noone wants to ask apple about the prores issues ?
Jan 11 20:01:27 <Cigaes>	Thanks indeed for the organization.
Jan 11 20:01:37 <michaelni>	saste, thx as well from me
Jan 11 20:02:12 <saste>	michaelni, about the prores thing, a private mail is probably better
Jan 11 20:02:48 <michaelni>	you volunteer to send apple a private mail ? or you mean i should ?
Jan 11 20:03:19 <saste>	michaelni, yes, probably doing it yourself would be faster
Jan 11 20:03:39 <saste>	as for me, i'm not even sure what the issues are about
Jan 11 20:03:46 <michaelni>	ok then
Jan 11 20:04:04 <saste>	then i suppose we can close the meeting
Jan 11 20:04:17 <saste>	thanks all for your time
Jan 11 20:04:24 <Cigaes>	Good bye.
Jan 11 20:04:38 <saste>	i'm going to send the meeting log later today
Jan 11 20:05:00 <saste>	(...to the ffmpeg-devel mailing list)
Jan 11 20:05:12 <saste>	good bye!
Jan 11 20:05:49 <michaelni>	good bye all, until the next meeting ...
Jan 11 20:05:56 *	Cigaes has quit (Quit: leaving)
Jan 11 20:05:57 *	michaelni (~michael <at> chello084114129144.4.15.vie.surfer.at) has left #ffmpeg-meeting ("Leaving")
Jan 11 20:06:35 *	ubitux (~ux <at> did75-21-88-189-231-41.fbx.proxad.net) has left #ffmpeg-meeting
Jan 11 20:06:38 *	llogan (~llogan <at> pdpc/supporter/student/pasteeater) has left #ffmpeg-meeting ("WeeChat 0.3.2")
Jan 11 20:08:43 *	wm4 (~wm4 <at> ip-static-94-242-209-206.as5577.net) has left #ffmpeg-meeting ("Leaving")
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Sat Jan 11 20:14:28 2014
This FFmeeting was hosted at the FOSDEM in Brussels, Belgium at 13 UTC. Its audio was streamed to somewhere and a script posted on ​irc://irc.freenode.net/ffmpeg-meeting on 2020-02-01.

[14:10:59] <j-b> hello
[14:11:01] <j-b> https://hangouts.google.com/call/jYaO0pADYZELBBfsntHgAEEI
[14:11:13] <thardin> hullo
[14:11:40] <J_Darnley> I can't invite, need op
[14:13:07] <thardin> ugh google wants me phone#
[14:13:12] <thardin> my
[14:14:23] <Lynne> just use talky.io
[14:14:47] <JEEB> I hope I'm showing up as muted since this UI isn't making me sure if I am or not (I should be)
[14:15:03] <j-b> Do you people hear us?
[14:15:20] <JEEB> no audio so far
[14:15:34] <jamrial> no
[14:15:35] <StevenLiu> No 
[14:15:51] <wbs> I'm just following irc, not the hangout unfortunately
[14:16:10] <JEEB> ok, james's video feed picked up
[14:16:24] <j-b> JEEB: with sound ?
[14:16:42] <J_Darnley> neat
[14:16:56] <JEEB> no sound still but I can just attempt to re-join
[14:17:19] <JEEB> nope
[14:17:27] <JEEB> ok, audio
[14:17:28] <StevenLiu> yes
[14:17:31] <jamrial> yeah
[14:17:32] <StevenLiu> have audio
[14:20:13] <thardin> I'm in. idling with mic off
[14:26:55] <thardin> usually what you do is have a nomination committee that asks people in advance and then present the nominees
[14:27:53] <cehoyos> Can everybody hear?
[14:28:14] <thardin> I can hear
[14:28:20] <JEEB> voting 1: 3d, vote 2: a week, so seems like the conn is working here :)
[14:28:21] <StevenLiu> I can too
[14:28:23] <cehoyos> Atm we don’t copy into irc what is said
[14:29:08] <JEEB> (v1 was IIRC people nominated who might not otherwise show up on voting list, v2 was committees, right?)
[14:29:15] <Illya> git log --since="last 36 months" --author="name" --oneline | wc -l
[14:29:16] <Illya> yes
[14:29:18] <cehoyos> Jeeb: Please write short summaries about what you hear
[14:29:24] <BBB> the hangout in the topic is empty btw
[14:29:31] <cehoyos> (mobile phone here)
[14:29:36] <JEEB> BBB: https://hangouts.google.com/call/jYaO0pADYZELBBfsntHgAEEI
[14:30:16] <JEEB> cehoyos: will attempt.
[14:30:22] <StevenLiu> git log --no-merges  --since=2020-01-25T00:00:00Z --until 2020-02-01T00:00:00Z --pretty=fuller | grep '^Author:' | sed 's/<.*//' |sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
[14:31:03] <cehoyos> Ty
[14:31:06] <JEEB> j-b noting - CoC more like a values list as opposed to specific rules. there will be a suggestion which would then be voted on
[14:33:08] <JEEB> Lynne noting - various audio decoders do checks already done avcodec common utils
[14:33:17] <JEEB> (if I acught that right)
[14:33:41] <michaelni> i have some difficulty understanding lynne with my headphones
[14:35:24] <Lynne> michaelni: the sample rate and other checks in audio decoders that are now checked internally by the API so they should be removed
[14:35:39] <Lynne> you added them, I pinged you on IRC and you didn't remove them
[14:36:07] <michaelni> Lynne, i dont remember abouzt the ping but yes if there are redundant checks i should remove them
[14:36:15] <michaelni> ping me again until i react!
[14:36:42] <JEEB> for new joiners: since the topic is out of date if you want to join muted the URL is https://hangouts.google.com/call/jYaO0pADYZELBBfsntHgAEEI
[14:36:59] <jamrial> patches would not be "lost" if we move to gitlab, for example
[14:37:32] <JEEB> gitlab move: I guess main part being discussed atm being merge requests
[14:37:44] <thardin> if patches are handled by say gitlab, is it possible to subscribe via rss/atom?
[14:38:01] <JEEB> I think yes, you can cehck with videolan's gitlab instance
[14:38:45] <JEEB> couldn't find RSS/atom right away, but they have JSON https://code.videolan.org/videolan/x264/merge_requests.json
[14:38:50] <thardin> ugh
[14:38:56] <JEEB> (just giving x264 as an example)
[14:39:02] <thardin> I keep track of mxf issues over rss
[14:39:11] <thardin> which is really handy
[14:39:21] <haasn> thardin: there are atom feeds for project activity, not sure if there's one *specific* to MRs
[14:39:27] <JEEB> ah
[14:39:33] <thardin> haasn: that might be enough
[14:39:46] <thardin> rss readers typically haev filters
[14:39:57] <michaelni> i dont see the problem with the existing infrastructure, so i dont see why we should move to gitlab
[14:40:05] <haasn> e.g. https://code.videolan.org/videolan/dav1d.atom
[14:40:47] <thardin> I run a gitlab instance at uni, and one thing I've found with gitlab is that it's.. a big thing. like it sometimes breaks for seemingly random reasons
[14:42:16] <JEEB> yes, it's a very large ruby on rails thing, which is why I would hopefully share the system with another project, like videolan
[14:42:31] <thardin> that sounds like a good idea
[14:43:01] <thardin> I upgraded our instance when the last ubuntu lts came out, which was a bit of a chore but now I don't have to care about it for a long time
[14:43:01] <haasn> (one consideration that shouldn't be ignored IMHO is that MRs also have a lower barrier for entry for outside contributions, since adopting a ML workflow for people not familiar with the project is a nonzero amount of hassle)
[14:43:45] <michaelni> Lynne, when you have time please send me a mail or something about the checks with fuzzing that you know are redundant and that i should remove
[14:44:31] <thardin> one annoying thing with gitlab is that it requires js just to read tickets
[14:45:43] <JEEB> carl noting that amd and nvidia people nowadays tend to try and be more thoughtful of current FFmpeg design, while Intel seems to attempt to push more driver-specificness there? (if I got it right?)
[14:45:53] <JEEB> (mostly wrt pix_fmts?)
[14:47:32] <JEEB> j-b suggestion: there will be a call to see their reasonings
[14:48:33] <thardin> https://live.fosdem.org/watch/h3242  might also work for people who want to listen
[14:49:25] *** Parts: wm4 (~wm4@p200300E7FF1FD095E15E376A87A246FC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) ("Leaving")
[14:49:30] <JEEB> (so I guess this is something post-P010?)
[14:49:54] <michaelni> "https://live.fosdem.org/watch/h3242" says "Whoops, looks like something went wrong." for me
[14:51:32] <thardin> yeah, for me too
[14:51:45] <thardin> in the future we should try to use some free protocol, say xmpp
[14:51:59] <JEEB> j-b noting: nvidia was not aware of issues with their headers, there will be discussions wrt that
[14:52:01] <thardin> or H.323 :]
[14:52:19] <cehoyos> We are not aware either...
[14:53:30] <JEEB> j-b noting: should git commit access list have clean-ups?
[14:55:00] <thardin> if we switch to something like gitlab then we could have gitlab-ci automagically run FATE and merge patchsets in once they've been approved
[14:55:13] <JEEB> at least the FATE part, yes
[14:55:43] <JEEB> (probably not all archs/OSs, but at least on some level)
[14:56:08] <thardin> and most importantly, refuse to merge if things break on some (important) platform
[14:57:30] <thardin> yeah no, cmake is terribl
[14:59:21] <JEEB> Lynne noting that gstreamer had a meson version of our build system, which was gaining interest while the bash-based thing was slow. then the configure script got sped up and interest vained
[14:59:43] <JEEB> kierank noting the lavf I/O and demuxing parts being interchanged
[14:59:46] <JEEB> *entangled
[14:59:52] <JEEB> thank you, that is a better word :)
[15:00:59] <JEEB> j-b noting that due to the playlist/manifest based HTTP formats, it has become less clear cut as before
[15:01:55] <JEEB> next meeting around in 1.5 months?
[15:02:04] <jamrial> sounds good
[15:02:16] <StevenLiu> lgtm
[15:03:20] <thardin> sure
[15:03:35] <JEEB> alright, room being cleared up
[15:03:47] <thardin> what's that whistling?
[15:03:57] <JEEB> probably the door, I remember them being funky or so
[15:04:01] <JEEB> (of the room)
[15:04:04] <BBB> is the a summary of the first 20 minutes or was anything important decided? will there be a summary sent to the list?
[15:04:36] <StevenLiu> JEEB: "that due to the playlist/manifest based HTTP formats" which part? demuxer and muxwer?
[15:04:40] <StevenLiu> muxer?
[15:04:48] <JEEB> StevenLiu: that was demuxer side which j-b mentioned
[15:05:13] <StevenLiu> Thanks JEEB and j-b
[15:05:44] <JEEB> BBB: I would expect there to be a minutes posted. the two voting thing were: 1. nominating people who possibly wouldn't get picked up by the commit count rule (three-day vote) 2. committee vote that is free, but if you get nominated you can say no
[15:05:50] <JEEB> (1w vote)
[15:07:48] <cehoyos> Was there an answer?
[15:08:13] <StevenLiu> for which question?
[15:08:25] <durandal_1707> is meeting already over ? :(
[15:08:40] <cehoyos> If other people were on the summary of last irc meeting
[15:08:55] <JEEB> other people?
[15:08:57] <cehoyos> no, apparently the room is only needed in one hour
[15:09:21] <cehoyos> there was no question from me?
[15:09:50] <JEEB> your last message was > 15:52 < cehoyos> We are not aware either... (wrt nvidia headers)
[15:09:53] <JEEB> then a disconnect
[15:10:15] <cehoyos> I asked if - spart from A Strasser, Moritz and Lou (I dont know how many commits they have) should be listed to be voters
[15:10:29] <JEEB> ah yes, that was the first one. which was the first, 3d vote?
[15:10:36] <cehoyos> It seems I didn’t send the question, sorry
[15:12:04] <BBB> JEEB: tnx
[15:12:26] <StevenLiu> ffmpeg-devel-irc's archive program maybe have some problem
[15:12:39] <StevenLiu> http://mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel-irc/2020-January/006244.html
[15:13:01] <cehoyos> We now (today) have three names on the list to be voters even if they don’t have the necessary commits
[15:13:02] <StevenLiu> only "[00:00:00 CET] --- Thu Jan 30 2020 " there
[15:13:07] <cehoyos> Yes
[15:14:29] <durandal_1707> can we move to more crucial issues, irrelevant voters stuff is on the list each and every meeting
[15:16:18] <StevenLiu> isn't that end?
[15:16:34] <cehoyos> Kind of, yes
[15:16:49] <StevenLiu> ok :)
[15:16:52] <JEEB> durandal_1707: there were other discussions as well, you just joined later and thus you just saw someone noting something regarding to one of the first parts of the discussion
[15:17:27] <cehoyos> So my question was: Is there anybody who see last time’s summary and can check if anybody else was mentioned back then?
[15:18:05] <JEEB> right
[15:19:37] <JEEB> last time  was a bit special since it was a boot-up
[15:20:03] <cehoyos> I thought Ronald send a summary 
[15:20:12] <JEEB> yea, I just don't notice a list of special nominees
[15:20:18] <michaelni> StevenLiu, about the IRC log, forwarded your coment to burek
[15:20:19] <JEEB> in > FFmpeg developer meeting 2019/12/9 notes
[15:20:36] <J_Darnley> We're done.
[15:20:40] <JEEB> also thanks for everyone wrt the meeting
[15:20:49] <J_Darnley> I hope you enjoyed the show (if you watched).
[15:20:58] <JEEB> also was nice listening in on the Y210 discussion
[15:20:58] <J_Darnley> I'll have to read this log later
[15:21:12] <durandal_1707> was show recorded in any way?
[15:21:18] <J_Darnley> Not on my end.
[15:21:25] * michaelni had quite some difficulty understanding people through the microphone used today
[15:21:34] <JEEB> anyways, wrt pixel formats, while it is C++ I have recently more and more moved towards zimg
[15:21:49] <durandal_1707> ban him ^
[15:22:05] <JEEB> just noted since someone (j-b?) called for a new pixel format conversion thing on CPUs
[15:22:10] <J_Darnley> Sorry, my shitty internal one
[15:22:47] <J_Darnley> Perhaps I needed to leave it louder.
[15:22:58] <michaelni> no need to be sorry, it was better than nothing :)
[15:22:59] <durandal_1707> called, but with no money provided, they expect people work for free or for miserable paycheck
[15:23:10] <michaelni> dont think louder would have helped 
[15:23:32] <michaelni> also seemed the connection at least the one i had was going up and down to rather low bitrates
[15:24:06] <J_Darnley> kierank for one complains that the wifi here is shit.
[15:24:19] <JEEB> yea, that probably caused the drops at some points which were short thankfully
[15:25:08] <durandal_1707> ffmpeg meeting - with bad infrastructure
[15:25:48] <J_Darnley> I should build my own using a €2000 camera
[15:26:06] <J_Darnley> How do I get Hangouts to ingest it though.
[15:29:43] <cehoyos> Good bye everybody!
[15:34:04] <durandal_1707> so what was discussed if at all? what where conclusions? if any.
[15:38:35] *** Parts: Lynne (~lynne@pars.ee) ()
[16:00:43] <kierank> durandal_1707: will be send by email iirc
[16:12:02] <kierank> j-b took photo
Notes originally from: ​https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-December/254105.html

- jb opens, agenda for this meeting
o what happened at last meeting (at VDD)
o various next steps, technical committee, community committee
o any votes that we might want to have for next time
o time/date for next meeting

- jb, summary of vdd:
o who can vote
o temp committees to bootstrap function
o final committees will be during fosdem
o long email about decision was mailed to ffmpeg-list
o most feedback was positive, except from durandal

- jb asks cehoyos for feedback on whether 20 commits is still ok
  to be considered participatory in voting
o cehoyos says (on IRC) that he thinks 3 years is long, but other
  people (michael, ronald, jdarnley) appear fine with 3 years.
o cehoyos also says non-coding contributors should be recognized
  (packages, server admins, mailing list admins), e.g. moritz or
  alexander strasser, and multiple people appear to agree, no
  disagreement is raised
o j-b proposes to add them to the voting list for now, under the
  rule of "limited number of other non-coding contributors"
o jamrial also thinks nevcariel should be added, thilo agrees
o we decide to exclude kurosu and kierank for now, since they are
  not very active ATM
o the same (for now) will go for libav contributions (anton, martin,
  janne)
o should packagers get a vote? cehoyos thinks they should in some
  cases, e.g. gentoo, osx, windows, debian
o several people raise various objections. ronald thinks they are
  not part of a core group. lynne proposes we only include people
  that contribute back. cehoyos says he specifically intends to
  bring in the pkg maintainers of debian, osx, windows (zeranoe) and
  gentoo since they do valuable work in "spreading our work" and
  contribute back. however, cehoyos suggests they should get one vote
  per package. j-b proposes we vote on each packager individually. the
  general consensus appears to be we want this, but limited
o should people on technical committee also get voting right regardless
  of whether they meet the 20 vote threshold or not?
o we understand that this is excluding people like kurosu and kierank,
  but as soon as they are active again, they will get in :)

- jb brings up whether rodger's proposed voting mechanism is generally
  agreed upon (or even if anyone cares)
o michael says on IRC: i suggested "Schulze STV" (to rodger)
o nobody else seems to care much, primarily what matters is who gets
  to vote, not how we vote (jamrial)
o [11:38am] <cehoyos> BBB: I wonder if the reason nobody comments is
  that nobody is aware that this does have "consequences"...
  [11:38am] <cehoyos> (I suspect it has consequences but still don't
  know what is "good" and what "not")
o iilya (on IRC) says "all the condorcet methods should produce almost
  the same results anyway"

- jb: next topic, technical conflict resolution committee
o TC right now is: michael, james almer, ronald, martin, anton
o jb will write down process as a markdown document
o ronald says "we'll see how it works the first time, right?"
o on IRC, anton, james almer, thilo agree to just see how it works out

- jb: next topic, community committee
o jb: "code of conduct?"
o "what does videolan do?"
o videolan has very specific rules about what you can not do in terms
  of behaviour on IRC etc., and how long you get kicked (escalation
  process) if you violate the rules
o cehoyos on irc: using the one from videolan as basis could be done
  but is difficult to agree with or not since it is very non-specific
o cehoyos and ronald: the CC should probably be tasked with updating
  the CoC to be more specific than the one we currently have.
o michael on irc: the problem with the coC was primarily that we didn't
  enforce it. steven liu agrees
o kierank and jamrial on irc think the current coc is not fit (kierank:
  "not fit for purpose", jamrial: "has no defined rules")
o lydia proposes one round of feedback so people can say what works for
  them and what does not
o most people agree with CC proposing changes to CoC, then all people
  voting on the result from that. jb/lydia will help with that.

- cehoyos asks about reimbursement limits for conferences from the ffmpeg
  funds.
o there appears no disagreement that the amounts he's quoting (EUR 320
  for hotel, EUR hotel for flight) is fine
o jb thinks this should not be done on list to protect people's private
  information re: reimbursements because it includes details like where
  you went or where from
o michael and cehoyos think the general requesting of reimbursements
  should be public so people can comment/object, but there is agreement
  some more personal information should be allowed to be kept private
o jb: videolan has travel policy with how much is ok for going where etc.

- Lynne asks about non-conference expenses, since we have funds but no
  clear process to "spend" ffmpeg's money
o jb asks if she can be more specific about what she's thinking of
o cehoyos agrees with lynna

- next meet?
o one month? or every second month? jb prefers monthly, jamrial/michaelni
  prefer bi-monthly
o stevenliu/anton/james darnley/thilo/koda/nightrose/iilya/jb want early
  january, jamrial/michaelni/ronald want at fosdem, so jan 6 (or around)
  is decided for next meet

- cehoyos also proposes we tell ffmpeg devs they "should" (not "can")
  come to fosdem and that the funds will pay for reasonable travel expenses

- jb closes meeting
Recording: ​https://youtu.be/1EjIdYuWXEM

--- Log opened Mon Dec 07 18:03:30 2020
Lastlog:
13:17:26 -!- Topic for #ffmpeg-meeting: https://hangouts.google.com/call/xKeJl8WHuMJ67Ue-y0l4AEEM - https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2019-November/252607.html
13:17:26 -!- Topic set by kierank [sid5955@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-yvyadwozjsmterts] [Sun Nov 10 06:14:53 2019]
13:17:26 [Users #ffmpeg-meeting]
13:17:26 [ BradleyS] [ Illya    ] [ jessidhia] [ koda  ] [ michaelni ] [ thardin] 
13:17:26 [ elenril ] [ J_Darnley] [ jkqxz    ] [ kurosu] [ mindfreeze] [ thilo  ] 
13:17:26 [ ePirat  ] [ JEEB     ] [ kierank  ] [ linjie] [ Nightrose ] 
13:17:26 -!- Irssi: #ffmpeg-meeting: Total of 17 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 17 normal]
13:17:31 -!- Channel #ffmpeg-meeting created Sun Nov 10 06:06:37 2019
13:17:41 -!- Irssi: Join to #ffmpeg-meeting was synced in 22 secs
13:31:27 -!- j-b [~jb@videolan/developer/j-b] has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
14:04:10 -!- j-b changed the topic of #ffmpeg-meeting to: NewTopic
14:04:20 -!- j-b changed the topic of #ffmpeg-meeting to: Dec 5th,  15:00 UTC (7:00 US West, 16:00
14:05:26 -!- j-b changed the topic of #ffmpeg-meeting to: Dec 5th, 15:00 UTC (7:00 US West, 16:00 Berlin/London/Paris, 23:00 Peking). https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2020-November/272272.html
14:08:13 -!- j-b changed the topic of #ffmpeg-meeting to: Dec 5th, 15:00 UTC (7:00 US West, 16:00 Berlin/London/Paris, 23:00 Peking). https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2020-November/272272.html - https://meet.google.com/pgi-xngk-tuq
14:08:26 < j-b> https://meet.google.com/pgi-xngk-tuq
14:09:03 < Illya> london isnt in the same timezone as berlin/paris
14:21:56 < Lynne> can we change the URL to a non-google service?
14:22:16 < Lynne> we talked about this yesterday in ffmpeg-devel, and we agreed jitsi is okay
14:23:33 < Illya> Lynne: test https://meet.jit.si/ShutSpousesBackEither please
14:23:50 -!- jamrial [~jamrial@181.23.80.53] has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
14:29:02 -!- j-b changed the topic of #ffmpeg-meeting to: Dec 5th, 15:00 UTC (7:00 US West, 16:00 Berlin/Paris, 23:00 Peking). https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2020-November/272272.html - https://meet.jit.si/ShutSpousesBackEither
14:29:43 < JEEB> &34
14:33:54 < Lynne> Illya: jitsi accepts all links
14:34:00 < Lynne> so https://meet.jit.si/ffmpeg_meeting works, and I'm in it atm
14:34:53 < Lynne> can anyone who's a mod here change the link?
14:38:19 < Lynne> ping?
14:40:23 -!- j-b changed the topic of #ffmpeg-meeting to: Dec 5th, 15:00 UTC (7:00 US West, 16:00 Berlin/Paris, 23:00 Peking). https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2020-November/272272.html - https://meet.jit.si/ffmpeg_meeting
14:49:36 < kierank> Does Jitsi work on mobile?
14:49:50 < j-b> yes
14:50:07 < j-b> Illya: notes taking somewhere?
14:50:26 < Illya> yep will be
14:58:42 < durandal_1707> why my microphone does not work at all, not detected
14:59:12 < JEEB> if it's through a browser, check that the site has the right to access your microphones?
15:00:46 < JEEB> the initial join page apparently worked for me under firefox
15:02:28 < durandal_1707> in first screen it shows green on bottom that microphone is working
15:03:26 < kierank> durandal_1707: use zoom
15:06:07 < durandal_1707> how? this is jit.si
15:07:03 < jamrial> just join without a mic
15:08:21 < durandal_1707> no, i want to talk in deep bassy voice
15:08:24 < Illya> j-b: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WN2up7TBC8_pyizgfgkk0duzXCfmN7WFtXXzV6RqaI0/edit?usp=sharing
15:08:33 < j-b> Illya: arghghghgh google doc
15:08:48 < Lynne> yup, needs a google account
15:08:52 < Lynne> -_-
15:08:55 < j-b> bad
15:09:09 < j-b> https://mensuel.framapad.org/p/ffmpeg_meeting
15:11:05 < linjie> : D
15:11:38 < liuqi> linjie good evening :D
15:13:34 < linjie> liuqi: Evening!
15:13:58 < durandal_1707> Paul is muted, cant talk
15:14:07 < elenril> JEEB: your volume is low
15:14:46 < liuqi> I only hear noise
15:15:50 < jamrial> JEEB: your mic volume is low
15:16:13 < JEEB> alright, will check
15:16:19 < j-b> durandal_1707: then, please give your objections here
15:16:52 < michaelni> I can review & comment on the CoC if people want and point me to where to look
15:17:00 < j-b> michaelni: great.
15:18:19 < durandal_1707> well if i use audacity it records chrome output
15:20:57 < durandal_1707> lol, perhaps microphone is just diad
15:20:57 < durandal_1707> *dead
15:23:09 < jamrial> regarding both commitees, can we set a limit or penalty for abusing calling them every time someone disagrees with you or seemingly blocks a patch?
15:24:36 < j-b> jamrial: ok
15:30:22 < jamrial> JEEB: gsoc gave us hevc. but that may have been an exception
15:31:19 < elenril> smarter was VERY exceptional
15:31:26 < jamrial> yeah
15:31:26 < elenril> it was basically a miracle
15:32:34 < michaelni> IMHO we should continue participating in GSoC
15:33:06 < Lynne> as long as ther administrative burden isn't too bad for the people doing it
15:33:07 < liuqi> for example abr(Adaptation BitRate ) or SAMPLE-AES (cbcs) for for hls
15:33:27 < Gyan> Continue.
15:33:35 < elenril> at least gsoc is not a burden on people who don't care about it
15:34:19 < liuqi> Continue
15:35:19  * kierank afk for 15
15:36:09 < kierank> yes
15:50:35 < elenril> j-b: DIE DIE DIE
15:52:00 < elenril> all build systems suck, someone should write a good one
15:52:56 < jamrial> i quite like our current build system as is
15:53:11 < Illya> im not a fan of meson
15:53:21 < liuqi> not too.
15:53:24 < elenril> meson sucks IME
15:54:04 < Lynne> "So speaks the lord of terror, and so it is written."
15:54:29 < jamrial> can't IO be moved to lavu?
15:54:56 < Lynne> I'd rather not tbh, lavu is for more generic platofm-independent code
15:55:04 < elenril> it can, but lavu is already a bunch of random things
15:55:12 < elenril> speaking of which: libavhwcontext
15:55:17 < jamrial> hwcontexts are hardly platform independent
15:55:20 < Lynne> yeah, just remembered -_-
15:55:59 < jamrial> well, it is an utilities library. it's meant to be "random" things, in a way :p
15:56:43 < elenril> as long as those things are reasonably small
15:57:04 < elenril> I would think distros hate how lavu now links to every hwaccel lib under the sun
15:57:24 < jamrial> probably
15:57:33 < elenril> s/small/selfcontained
15:59:17 < kierank> yes
15:59:45 < durandal_1707> what was said about nicolas and me?
15:59:54 < j-b> durandal_1707: that we love you :)
15:59:58 < j-b> durandal_1707: well, I do.
16:00:19 < durandal_1707> i rebooted, and got microphone finally working
16:00:33 < JEEB> yup, your sound worked ok
16:00:56 < durandal_1707> so i joined when people mentioned me and "bad" word
16:02:35 < JEEB> I am not sure if you were mentioned, it was just a "too bad" since even if all logs are posted some people will still not be happy with the logs left from the meeting.
16:03:14 < michaelni> Id like to keep the libpostproc code/feature in some form/place useable from luibavfilter
16:03:48 < kierank> we could put it in a different repo and have it optional?
16:04:00 < kierank> as it was in the beginning
16:04:34 < durandal_1707> libpostproc is already external repo, and abandoned, ask derek
16:09:52 < jamrial> other thing to consider: a patch that no one reviews, is it implicitly accepted after a bunch of pings or not? so far, that seems to be how most developers work
16:10:07 < Gyan> Related to Topic 7Many (most?) patches are unreviewed. We should shepherd patches, especially by new / occasional contributors.Key change needed:  avoid leaving patches in limbo or ignoredProposed process (rough):  acknowledging patch(es) on receipt --> identify / designate reviewers --> alert reviewers as required --> ongoing engagement -->
16:10:08 < Gyan> resolution.
16:10:41 < Gyan> Related to Topic 7  Many (most?) patches are unreviewed. We should shepherd patches, especially by new / occasional contributors.  Key change needed:  avoid leaving patches in limbo or ignored  Proposed process (rough):  acknowledging patch(es) on receipt --> identify / designate reviewers --> alert reviewers as required --> ongoing engagement -->
16:10:41 < Gyan> resolution.
16:16:50 < Gyan> It's a self-reinforcing defect: fewer reviews --> fewer new contributors --> fewer reviewers --> fewer reviews
16:17:02 < JEEB> yup
16:25:06 < michaelni> SPI process IIRC is you buy it and ask for reimbursement on ML, if noone object its forwarded to SPI and then its up to SPI , that is IIRC
16:26:05 < elenril> j-b: power9 is actually way more appropriate since it's open
16:26:12 < jamrial> michaelni: so far that was done for travel costs, but i don't recall it done for hardware
16:26:20 < michaelni> and as mentioned above some value items belong to SPI but are hosted / adimed by someone from ffmpeg, this stuff is docuemneted at SPIs website IIRC
16:26:45 < michaelni> jamrial, i suggest someone tries it with something minor to see how it will work
16:28:33 < elenril> it's rather problematic that your first spend your money on it and only then it's actually decided whether you get the money back
16:28:52 < Lynne> and that its owned by SPI
16:29:01 < Lynne> and SPI buys it?
16:29:30 < Lynne> the way I see it, those money are pretty much only usable for travel expenses or conferences, not for/by developers :(
16:29:30 < Gyan> Can't we just ask someone at SPI?
16:29:47 < jamrial> i'm very much in favor of switching to gitlab
16:31:24 < jamrial> gitlab shows differences between commits after a force push in a given MR. it's incredibly useful and much easier to review with huge patches compared to email
16:31:30 < linjie> I’m for merge- request too, easier to track patches and updated histories.
16:32:56 < jamrial> elenril: afaik you can send emails that gitlab automatically converts into an mr
16:33:21 < elenril> jamrial: I know you can do _some_ things with it
16:33:46 < elenril> but not everything
16:33:59 < elenril> e.g. reviewing was not that some time ago
16:34:02 < elenril> *not there
16:34:54 < elenril> and to be clear - it's not that I'm so much in love with email
16:35:19 < elenril> I just hate modern web browsers, the user experience is atrocious
16:36:35 < linjie> Fine from me : D
16:36:35 < JEEB> problem with something !gitlab is that a lot of the integrations or basic features might not be there. at least gitlab is something that can be issue-reported to :)
16:36:51 < JEEB> (and seems to be the most feature-complete thing)
16:37:54 < jamrial> jkqxz: to fully integrate dav1d libavcodec would need to support frame+slice threading. without that, it will be outperformed by the libdav1d wrapper
16:38:05 < elenril> was about to say
16:38:13 < JEEB> I think that is just a case of mapping that somehow, no?
16:38:30 < elenril> no, that needs to be done in the generic code, not inside the decoder
16:38:37 < JEEB> ok
16:38:51 < elenril> and you want to do that for other codecs too
16:38:55 < elenril> like hevc
16:38:56 < JEEB> sure, like hevc
16:38:56 < JEEB> yup
16:45:00 < elenril> j-b: and then we rename ourselves ffstreamer
16:45:10 < Illya> elenril: +1
16:49:03 < JEEB> jitsi worked pretty nicely overall
16:49:07 < j-b> I will reformat the framapad and send it.
16:49:11 < j-b> JEEB: yup
16:49:17 < j-b> JEEB: a lot better than I rememberd
16:54:10 < Lynne> yeah, this went fine
16:54:22 < Lynne> we haven't had a meeting in almost a year
16:54:39 < michaelni> elenril, about SPI payments, i dont think it should be a real problem that equipment is bought first and then reimbursed afterwards. Its only a problem if ever SPI rejects such a reimbursement, also i think i remember reading that SPI has a credit card with which they could pay (cant dfind now where that was written) but that way they could pay directly
16:55:49 < Illya> who owns the equipment too etc
16:56:07 < Illya> what about developers who need to 'own' their equipment like Lynne
16:56:13 < michaelni> still if SPI rejects a payment (which i dont think would happen) one could return the equipment or fflabs could pay it or iam sure we can find another payer
16:56:14 < Illya> a GPU is a bit of a strange thing to be shared
16:57:05 < michaelni> Illya, the ownership IIUC is a legal requiremnt for SPI being a tax exempt non profit thing, why would one need to "own" the equipment ?
16:57:18 < Illya> see comment above
16:57:33 < Illya> how would SPI own a GPU which is used in a developer owned machine
16:57:37 < Illya> how do you even track that etc
16:57:55 < michaelni> Illya, i dont see the problem 
16:58:23 < michaelni> assume my GPU of my notebook was owned by SPI, it wouldnt make a difference would it ?
16:58:54 < michaelni> i mean unless i sell my notebook or inherit it after death or something
16:59:55 < JEEB> basically it just means that if SPI wants it back, they technically can request that.
17:00:40 < JEEB> tracking as such shouldn't be a problem, an XYZ thing has been purchased and sent to PERSON
17:00:41 < michaelni> btw: "Generally, it is expected that individuals will pay the expenses up front and be reimbursed by SPI, but advance payment can be arranged with sufficient advance warning to the Treasurer.  The Treasurer also has a Visa card for online purchases which for some reason need to be made directly by SPI."
17:03:28 < michaelni> JEEB, i dont think they could legally do that as its payed by donations earmarked for FFmpeg but thats a legal question and iam a lifeform not a lawyer
17:07:36 < Illya> https://youtu.be/1EjIdYuWXEM
17:08:54 < durandal_1707> put it on bluray
17:09:35 < Illya> get to listen to durandal_1707's beautiful voice in glorious 4k hdr
17:18:01 < JEEB> durandal_1707: oh you're here :P on ffmpeg-devel there's someone called jafa who has patches for your ac4 dec
17:23:05 < Lynne> they do?
17:47:09 < kierank> I don't understand what notebook gpu has to do with it
21:17:00 -!- durandal_1707 [~computer@77.237.97.78] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:20:04 -!- durandal_1707 [~computer@77.237.97.78] has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
22:13:01 < koda> thanks for the recording, this is already leagues ahead better than AOM :)
23:32:33 -!- durandal_1707 [~computer@77.237.97.78] has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
04:40:56 -!- jamrial [~jamrial@181.23.80.53] has quit []
09:00:04 -!- j-b [~jb@videolan/developer/j-b] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
09:00:58 -!- j-b [~jb@natalya.videolan.org] has joined #ffmpeg-meeting
End of Lastlog

Sample full repo-log (unrelated changed for path/in/question added)


>svn log -v -q file:///Z:/Repo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r6 | Badger | 2015-07-08 15:03:09 +0500 (Ср, 08 июл 2015)
Changed paths:
   A /trunk/Miracle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r5 | Badger | 2015-07-08 15:02:06 +0500 (Ср, 08 июл 2015)
Changed paths:
   M /trunk/a.txt
   A /trunk/b.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r4 | Badger | 2015-07-08 15:01:09 +0500 (Ср, 08 июл 2015)
Changed paths:
   A /trunk/a.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r3 | Badger | 2015-07-08 15:00:13 +0500 (Ср, 08 июл 2015)
Changed paths:
   D /trunk/Miracle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r2 | Badger | 2015-07-08 14:59:17 +0500 (Ср, 08 июл 2015)
Changed paths:
   A /trunk/Miracle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r1 | Badger | 2015-07-08 14:57:21 +0500 (Ср, 08 июл 2015)
Changed paths:
   A /branches
   A /tags
   A /trunk
------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if you're using fluent-ffmpeg like I am, the full code is below:


var ffmpeg = require('fluent-ffmpeg');
var command = ffmpeg();
var timemark = null;

command
  .on('end', onEnd )
  .on('progress', onProgress)
  .on('error', onError)
  .input('./input-video.mp4')
  .input('./template.png')
  .complexFilter([
    "[0:V]scale=1080:-1,pad=0:1920:0:(oh-ih)/2[vid];[vid][1:v]overlay"
  ])
  .outputFps(30)
  .output('./output-video.mp4')
  .run();

/* Misc */

function onProgress(progress){
  if (progress.timemark != timemark) {
    timemark = progress.timemark;
    console.log('Time mark: ' + timemark + "...");
  }
}

function onError(err, stdout, stderr) {
  console.log('Cannot process video: ' + err.message);
}

function onEnd() {
  console.log('Finished processing');
}

// Full code


ffmpeg("./cat_kfc.mp4")
    .audioBitrate(8)
    .audioFrequency(11025)
    .save("./output.mp4")
    .on('progress', p => {
        console.log(`${p.targetSize}kb downloaded`);
    })
    .on('end', ()=>console.log("Done!"))
    .on('error', ()=>console.log("ERROR!"))

Recommend

FFMPEG FFmeeting/2019-12–FFmpeg Context Navigation

FFMPEG FFmeeting/2020-12–FFmpeg Context Navigation

FFMPEG Speeding up/slowing down audio

FFMPEG Speeding up/slowing down video setpts filter Smooth

FFMPEG Speeding up/slowing down video setpts filter

FFMPEG Speeding up/slowing down video raw bitstream method

FFMPEG Capture/Capture/Desktop中文版本–FFmpeg 无损录制

FFMPEG Capture/Capture/Desktop中文版本–FFmpeg 注意事项

FFMPEG Capture/Capture/Desktop中文版本–FFmpeg Windows 系统

FFMPEG Capture/Capture/Desktop中文版本–FFmpeg 苹果 OS X 系统

FFMPEG Capture/Capture/Desktop中文版本–FFmpeg Linux 系统

FFMPEG Windows Re-encoding

FFMPEG Windows Recording video

FFMPEG Windows Video supported

FFMPEG Windows List devices

FFMPEG Capture/Lightning–FFmpeg The actual solution

FFMPEG Capture/Lightning–FFmpeg The ideal solution

FFMPEG Capture/V4L2_ALSA–FFmpeg Destinations Streaming to your LAN

FFMPEG Capture/V4L2_ALSA–FFmpeg Destinations Streaming on your web site

FFMPEG Capture/V4L2_ALSA–FFmpeg Destinations File

FFMPEG Capture/V4L2_ALSA–FFmpeg Compression

FFMPEG Capture/V4L2_ALSA–FFmpeg Video stream

FFMPEG Examples Record audio from an application

FFMPEG Examples Record audio from your microphone

FFMPEG Selecting the input Mixer tools pactl

FFMPEG Selecting the input

FFMPEG Syntax

FFMPEG Examples Record audio from an application while also routing the audio to an output device

FFMPEG Selecting the input card Surviving the reboot

FFMPEG Selecting the input card

FFMPEG OS X AVFoundation

FFMPEG Linux Adjusting camera functions

FFMPEG Linux Encoding example

FFMPEG Linux List device capabilities

FFMPEG Linux List devices

FFMPEG Windows vfwcap Encoding example

FFMPEG Windows vfwcap List devices

FFMPEG Lossless Recording

FFMPEG Hardware Encoding

FFMPEG Windows Use built-in GDI screengrabber

FFMPEG Windows Use DirectShow

FFMPEG macOS

FFMPEG Linux

FFMPEG Debugging Macroblocks and Motion Vectors

FFMPEG Testing Coverage of FATE Test Suite Using gcovr

FFMPEG Testing Coverage of FATE Test Suite Using lcov

FFMPEG Testing Coverage of FATE Test Suite ./configure

FFMPEG Testing Coverage of FATE Test Suite Prerequisites

FFMPEG FATE/UseOftiny_psnr–FFmpeg Use of tiny_psnr

FFMPEG Adding a FATE Test Three Parts of a Test Configuration enc_dec_pcm

FFMPEG Adding a FATE Test Three Parts of a Test Registration Lots of Tests for One Feature -- Irregular File Names