Re: FFmpeg as SPI associated project

Robert Brockway writes ("FFmpeg as SPI associated project"):
...
> 4. Stefano Sabatini is recognised by SPI as the authoritative decision
> maker and SPI liaison for FFmpeg. Successors will be appointed
> following a concensus on the ffmpeg-devel(at)ffmpeg(dot)org mailing list. If
> a concensus cannot be achieved an election for the SPI liaison will be
> held among members of the ffmpeg-devel(at)ffmpeg(dot)org mailing list.

I don't think this is correct.

I went to look at the ffpmeg-devel list
https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2012-May/thread.html
https://lists.ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2012-May/124311.html
and Stefano is not the project's autocrat, which is what
"authoritative decision maker" would mean to me.

(NB I'm not accusing Stefano of some kind of power grab, or anything.
But we should get this right and one of the reasons for writing this
stuff down now is so that we have something to refer to in the future
if there should be any kind of argument.)

Given what I understand to be the internal processes in FFmpeg I would
prefer to see something like this:

Stefano Sabatini is recognised by SPI as the current liason for
FFmpeg. SPI expects him to inform us of decisions relating to SPI
made by the FFmpeg project, and we will honour his requests in
accordance with the Framework for Associated Projects.

However FFmpeg does not currently have a formal governance
structure. Therefore in case of significant dispute, SPI will
follow what appears to the SPI Board to be the rough consensus
view of the FFmpeg project committers.

The effect would be the same for routine transactions, but it makes it
clear that if there is some kind of dispute or split within FFmpeg,
the SPI Board will ultimately make the decision about what appears to
be the rough consensus view of the FFmpeg project.

That avoids the FFmpeg project having to invent a formal governance
structure just for its dealings with SPI. I would rather not force
associated projects down that path unless they want it for themselves.
Rather I would like SPI to be able to reuse whatever understandings
about governance already exist - even if that means that occasionally
the SPI Board might end up having to make a tricky decision rather
than just following the letter of some rules.

The exact phrase "rough consensus view of the FFmpeg project
committers" is the key point here and seems to me to be the closest
thing to a governing body in FFmpeg. If I am mistaken then please
correct me.

Stefano, does this seem right to you ?

Ian.