Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Weekly Edition
Return to the Development pageRecent Features
LWN.net Weekly Edition for September 7, 2012
LinuxCon: funding development
Improving Ubuntu's application upload process
LWN.net Weekly Edition for August 30, 2012
Look and feel lawsuits, the second time around
| |||||||||||||
FFmpeg turmoil[Posted January 19, 2011 by corbet]
A group of FFmpeg developers has announced
that the project has a new set of maintainers - news which came as a surprise to existing maintainer
Michael Niedermayer. Developer Diego Biurrun has posted an explanation of how the coup came to be, but
it's clear that not everybody is satisfied. "The discontent reached the point where a fork was being contemplated
and then planned, but it turned out that the momentum had soared way
past critical mass and turned into a tidal wave of revolution. The
focus moved from forking to avoiding a fork if possible.
Since git was being set up on videolan.org, setting up an alternative
git tree on mphq was the natural choice. With development moving to
videolan.org and such a large group of developers already part of the
revolution keeping the infrastructure was the logical consequence."
(Thanks to Mattias Mattsson).
(Log in to post comments)
FFmpeg turmoil Posted Jan 19, 2011 15:40 UTC (Wed) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link]
When I see this kind of piece of news, I'd really like to have a bit more journalistic work and explain a bit what happens.
Nevertheless it's interesting. I wonder if FFmpeg will have proper releases now, instead of everyone taking a dev snapshot.
Journalistic work Posted Jan 19, 2011 15:43 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Such "journalistic work" takes more time than has elapsed since the announcement went out. You may (or may not) get such work from LWN; we've not even thought about whether this event merits a full article yet. In the meantime, though, I thought it made sense to get the news out there.
Journalistic work Posted Jan 19, 2011 15:52 UTC (Wed) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link]
Rest assured I fully appreciate how LWN is done. That was just a pipe dream, expressed aloud? I was thinking more of a few lines than a full article, but after reflexion maybe it'd be too slashdot-like.
Journalistic work Posted Jan 19, 2011 21:34 UTC (Wed) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
> Rest assured I fully appreciate how LWN is done. That was just a pipe dream, expressed aloud?
Maybe, to use the vernacular, patches welcome?
In other words, if you aren't satisfied, maybe this is your chance to do some research and write an article for LWN :-)
Alternately, I'd be careful of making strong statements about what LWN should (or shouldn't) do, even if you are a subscriber :-)
Have fun,
Paul
FFmpeg turmoil Posted Jan 20, 2011 17:17 UTC (Thu) by kirkengaard (subscriber, #15022) [Link]
Actually, I think this three-link snapshot is excellent journalistic work, in terms of spotting a) the original announcement, b) the maintainer's response, and c) a bit of the PR of the new group. If I wanted to pursue more information, I have the names and places and a few of the threads to begin with.
FFmpeg turmoil Posted Jan 19, 2011 17:48 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Well, this is fun. Fiery rhetoric, 'the tidal wave of revolution', mention from several people that they feel 'stabbed in the back' or 'personally insulted' and that the original posters 'should have forked'...
... nobody (including the 'revolutionaries') seems to have noted that forking is exactly what this is: a new publically visible git repo. Anyone can set up one of those, and impose whatever procedures they want on commits to it, however bizarre. All this flaming over it is merely a sign that the ffmpeg people haven't really got used to the fork-is-good merge-is-easy world that git brings.
One Bad Fork Deserves Another... Posted Jan 19, 2011 20:00 UTC (Wed) by jimwelch (guest, #178) [Link]
If this "fork" turns out to be a bad idea or if the new group puts up some kind of brick wall to some devs, It can always be forked again. BUT who owns the name? Is it trademarked? A trademark always has an owner. When Ethereal forked, it became wireshark because of the trademark. GPL does not protect against trademark.
One Bad Fork Deserves Another... Posted Jan 19, 2011 22:35 UTC (Wed) by russell (subscriber, #10458) [Link]
the domain ffmpeg.org is owned by Fabrice Bellard, but is he involved in the project anymore? I wonder how he feels about this?
One Bad Fork Deserves Another... Posted Jan 19, 2011 22:39 UTC (Wed) by russell (subscriber, #10458) [Link]
Fabrice also owns the trademark. ffmpeg.org/legal.html
FFmpeg turmoil Posted Jan 20, 2011 0:26 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
Funny, he says they tried to contact everyone but "did not suceed with all"..
Sounds like a pretty lame excuse. He should just come out and say they didn't want to contact him for whatever reason
FFmpeg turmoil Posted Jan 20, 2011 5:40 UTC (Thu) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link]
I think we need to call FEMA in and have this tea pot declared a disaster area.
FFmpeg turmoil Posted Jan 20, 2011 8:37 UTC (Thu) by NikLi (guest, #66938) [Link]
They do mention "kernel style" but the kernel style actually has one person, Linus, whos replies very often are "I'm not pulling this CRAP!". Then Linus, according to his taste "pushes" to the public tree. On the other hand, most distributions have their own trees and often bypass Linus, or in the case of other projects maintain forks with features which they "don't have the time/resources" to contrinbute upstream.
The problem with politics is that people do favors to their supporters or to gain more supporters and eventually this corrupts the hierarchy and makes the projects vulnerable to exteral influences. Dunno, maybe this will work out in the end. We surely hope so since video is a very sensitive area and thanks to the stubborness of ffmpeg developers to patents, etc we have ffmpeg which is the base of almost all OSS video players.
FFmpeg turmoil Posted Jan 20, 2011 14:59 UTC (Thu) by bgmarete (guest, #47484) [Link]
This is unsettling, even sad.
FFmpeg is one of those pivotal FOSS projects. It is absolutely crucial to a decent multimedia experience not only on Linux but also on other free operating systems as well. It is high quality code that we all use everyday. And Michael Niedermayer has been very important in maintaining high coding standards. But not only that: A look at git-blame-stats reveals that he is far-and-away the most important contributor. For example he wrote and maintains, more or less single-handedly, the H.264 decoder.
I hope that every effort will be made to ensure his continued participation in the project.
FFmpeg turmoil Posted Jan 20, 2011 22:31 UTC (Thu) by cosoleto (guest, #64771) [Link]
Michael Niedermayer: «Theres quite a lot that has happened in the last few days and I have not made up my mind entirely what I will do, maybe I'll continue to maintain ffmpeg at videolan for a while, as long as users or developers want it or there are some who offer little jobs on ffmpeg but in the end I will likely leave Contributing to the new maintainers is no fun and too much bikesheding for me besides I still feel the whole move was plain and simple wrong like it was done and I do not want to support that». (lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2011-Jan...)
FFmpeg turmoil Posted Jan 21, 2011 20:20 UTC (Fri) by JEDIDIAH (guest, #14504) [Link]
The impact of ffmpeg goes far beyond just open source Unixen. It helps make the multi-media experience better on all desktop operating systems including the proprietary and fruity ones. It's a foundation library used by more than just Linux-centric or even libre projects.
Does FFmpeg and other FOSS development makes people better or worse? Posted Jan 21, 2011 2:45 UTC (Fri) by przemoc (subscriber, #67594) [Link] I've read first and second thread and I still don't understand why unpleasant "overthrow" style was chosen. (Scare quotes, because there was no dictatorship in the first place.)I am not following ffmpeg development, so I cannot say whether Michael's leadership was of high standards or not. Nevertheless Michael involvement and commitment are pretty obvious if you check code repository, mailing list or just some replies in mentioned threads. Even if his way of acting and working on ffmpeg projects was flawed a bit in some aspects (not using IRC is really undeniably severe issue, without doubts...), he deserved and still deserves some respect, especially amongst other ffmpeg devs, because they are the ones, that should be able to appreciate his past efforts to the utmost. Am I wrong? Actually many developers thought that having Niedermayer as the project leader is bad. Some problems were pointed out and also acknowledged by Michael in many cases. He was addressing some of them before, or at least he tried. But the thing is that "dead end issues list" was presented _after_ simply rude takeover announcement. I am not sure what signatories were thinking apart from wanting to avoid alleged flamewars (grisly cheap excuse), but it looks that talking Micheal out of ffmpeg project had unquestionably higher priority than other goals, even though it was not explicitly stated there. Is it really successful beginning of "better ffmpeg"? There is only a small quantum of solace that all ffmpeg developers wish ffmpeg the best and try to make it better with every commit, because it's truism. At least it was true before announcement was sent. It's unfortunately unclear nowadays. I see some improvements in switching to fork+pull/push model and introducing ffmpeg subsystem/parts lieutenants similarly to kernel way of development, but such change surely could be done with Michael in charge. Moreover, it is often good to have someone above these so called lieutenants or maintainers. Why the chance of lowering his burden was not given to him before, but after revolution he's encouraged to code more instead of reviewing? Robert Swain's emails, seemingly friendly but cautiously worded, show that at least part of "new team" can discuss things politely. It shows also that revolution move was not well thought and, which is important thing, not well discussed among the revolutionists (albeit it's expressed by them a bit differently). Surprising, because they should be flawlessly prepared as there was no rush in their actions, right? It looks they've reached a point of no return. Personally I am torn apart. As a FOSS user I also wish ffmpeg all the best, because it's a great software. As a human though, I think I slightly know how Michael can feel in this situation, thus wish him all the best much more stronger. It may even mean leaving ffmpeg, which is definitely not an easy decision for him, but perfectly understandable. People are more important than things. Everyone should always remember it. > > Given that all people i had a problem with now are on the new team, and i > > dont seem to have much support left, i fear this is going to end in me > > leaving the project. Contribute is not fun with ones code going through the > > amount of bikesheding and nitpicks mine has gone through lately and my > > personal fork with myself having so little support would probably just rot. > > It depends if the situation has to be that way. When it comes down to > it, I think the vast majority of people involved in this project would > be _really really_ disappointed and sad if you were to leave. I think > this is a horrible situation to be in and I can completely understand > that you feel betrayed, disrespected and hurt by these events. I > apologise for my part in that though I think my apology is worthless, > I just have to not do it again. Well if i wasnt striped of my BDFL hat and that hijacking of ffmpeg.org didnt happen then we wouldnt be in this situation. Apparently signatories forgot it. And lack of additional statements from the others rather proves that not everyone will be disappointed and sad. If it was only a fork or spin-off...
Does FFmpeg and other FOSS development makes people better or worse? Posted Jan 21, 2011 12:02 UTC (Fri) by Velmont (subscriber, #46433) [Link]
Thank you for this great comment. It made me understand a bit more.
This just looks awfully sad. :-(
There's also a blog post about it here, from an insulted ffmpeg developer gabucino.be/files/ffmpeg-coup.html
Does FFmpeg and other FOSS development makes people better or worse? Posted Jan 21, 2011 13:49 UTC (Fri) by DonDiego (subscriber, #24141) [Link]
Gabucino is a masterful troll and flamer, but he never was an FFmpeg developer.
Does FFmpeg and other FOSS development makes people better or worse? Posted Jan 21, 2011 15:05 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
He seems to have an awful lot of commits to his name [1] for someone who "never was an ffmpeg developer". I don't know anything about this conflict or ffmpeg development in general, but that seems quite a low blow to deny someone's contributions like that...
[1] repo.or.cz/w/ffmpeg.git?a=search&st=author&...
Does FFmpeg and other FOSS development makes people better or worse? Posted Jan 21, 2011 15:09 UTC (Fri) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
Argh! Please totally ignore above message. :(:(:( I somehow entered the completely wrong name into teh search field and then didn't notice it even when pasting. And then made an incorrect conclusion based on that. It should have been this, of course:
repo.or.cz/w/ffmpeg.git?a=search&st=author&... which makes your message entirely reasonable. Please accept my utmost apologies!
Does FFmpeg and other FOSS development makes people better or worse? Posted Jan 22, 2011 6:08 UTC (Sat) by gabucino (guest, #72504) [Link]
Try this one: repo.or.cz/w/mplayer.git?a=search&h=HEAD&s...
Does FFmpeg and other FOSS development makes people better or worse? Posted Jan 25, 2011 0:02 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
Just goes to show I should've just kept my uninformed self out of things entirely. :)
Does FFmpeg and other FOSS development makes people better or worse? Posted Jan 25, 2011 1:16 UTC (Tue) by lu_zero (guest, #72556) [Link]
FFmpeg != MPlayer
Does FFmpeg and other FOSS development makes people better or worse? Posted Jan 25, 2011 6:39 UTC (Tue) by gabucino (guest, #72504) [Link]
Next time please prefix with "BEWARE! Groundbreaking new information!"
.. you were saying?
Shades of Evil Posted Jan 24, 2011 23:48 UTC (Mon) by iive (guest, #59638) [Link]
@przemoc,
Great comment. I wish I was able to write one of equal quality. Your comment convinced me to to shed some light. Everybody be warned I may be biased.
In essence the coup is led by core group that also happens to administer the server where FFmpeg is hosted.
There have been a long standing conflict between Mans Rullgard and Michael Niedermayer. Mans is a quite skilled and active developer and root server admin, but who have bad temper. He seemed quite unhappy from the fact that Project Leader had authority over him, so he specifically targeted Michael who held the title. There have been small stings and mild insinuations for years (including behind Michael's back), using more persistence than strong words. (Such things affect people.) The conflict finally burst when Mans stated he doesn't recognize Michael as project leader. There's been accusation that Michael doesn't follow project rules . Michael immediately requested vote of confidence ( thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/118594 ). It turned out that Michael did follow the accepted and written rules, but not everything other people have been subjected to. The vote took a while. I thought that most of the people voted for option "C" ("I want michael to stay our leader, but to abide by the same rules as everyone else."), but when I counted it today, it was 15x"A" (Stay), 1x"B" (Leave) and 5x"C". Even before getting overwhelming support, Michael agreed to follow same routine as everyone else. Mans since ceased all public and private communication with the community (or so we thought) and even disabled some of the services he hosted (FATE). The level of flames plummeted.
Meanwhile, at the day the conflict burst, (2 Oct 2010) - Attila Kinali (the root admin who bought, found hosting, installed and is responsible for the server) suspended both Mans' and Diego Biurrun's root access, until the matter is resolved. At 12 Oct 2010 Attila restored their root access citing absence of confidence vote (It didn't make sense to me, but he never gave official answer to my objection).
Because Mans has been the primary root admin of the server and he was still absent, it was necessary to find another admin ( thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/119382 ). Unfortunately no replacement was found, so instead we accepted an offer to move the repository on videolan.org server. As they host only git repositories, the project would have to switch to git first.
When the switch is about to happen, Diego "urgently" contacts some developers, and calls them for meeting (on irc). There he manages to convince them (he could be quite smooth talker). Mans is also there. The announcement is signed.
On the next day, when FFmpeg completes the switch to git.videolan.org, the root admins create another git repository on git.ffmpeg.org and mail the announce.
Shades of Evil Posted Jan 25, 2011 0:51 UTC (Tue) by lu_zero (guest, #72556) [Link]
By your count, given there are 18 undersigned and you say 15 didn't voted, 6+15 is 21 against vs 15 in favor...
Leaving those 15 "A" (most of them with the same/similar clauses as expressed by Jason with his C) as counted as in favor.
Nothing much to say.
Shades of Evil Posted Jan 25, 2011 15:38 UTC (Tue) by micka (subscriber, #38720) [Link]
Those who don't vote... well, don't.
In every case, one could at most understand that as "I don't care" (which is certainly not the case), not "against" (against what ?).
Shades of Evil Posted Jan 28, 2011 1:59 UTC (Fri) by jannex (guest, #43525) [Link]
One might claim that signing that declaration might be counted as voting.</sarcasm>
Shades of Evil Posted Feb 8, 2011 0:24 UTC (Tue) by randomguy3 (subscriber, #71063) [Link]
Hmm? And were there other people that didn't vote who may have gone for option A?
Shades of Evil Posted Jan 26, 2011 14:07 UTC (Wed) by przemoc (subscriber, #67594) [Link] @iiveThank you for some details about preceding events. It's worth to add that Micheal has not resigned yet. He still reads mailing list and responds sometimes (obviously not as often as before distressful upheaval). Michael recently got information that made him a bit less self-possessed. The thread he started at ffmpeg-devel theoretically could be summed by following quote: On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 07:18:06PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 07:12:51PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:17:40AM -0500, compn wrote: >> > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:45:05 +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> > > >Hi >> > > > >> > > >I really wanted to leave, resign and be rid of this retarded political piss game >> > > > >> > > >But then one of the developers on my side told me he has been offered money >> > > >to work for / join the new maintainers. >> > > >From where is that money? >> > > >from our foundation it seems >> > > >> > > probably ask that developer for mails before jumping to any conclusions. >> > >> > I will, but i trust him, i dont think he invented this. >> >> mail sent, iam waiting, but if its really not from the foundation then it must >> come from someone else or this is a very odd misunderstanding > > Ive seen the mail, ronald do i have your permission to post the mail here? I guess. You should ask this privately, not in public, if you want to protect privacy, though. Ronald(no more details are publicly known AFAIK apart from Ronald statement, sent before, that it cannot be foundation's money as all directors, including Micheal, need to vote over such decisions) However it cannot be summed with above quote, because there is a second sub-thread. Benjamin Larsson suggested funding Micheal's work on ffmpeg. I'm pretty speechless, because things are getting weirder and weider. Idea per se, extended by Stefano Sabatini, who believe that raising funds for sponsoring main ffmpeg contributors should be the one of the main objectives of the foundation, is unmistakably great (meant also partially as right, not as innovative). But there is the context that cannot be just forgotten, especially by Micheal. Therefore (sorry, but I cannot skip this rough association) such offer looks like kind of make-up. Why, why, oh why there was no such proposal before? Excerpt from Benjamin's last reply to Micheal in this thread: >> I'm not aware such events. Most likely not true. But how about we fund >> you to keep working on your fork? I'm sure there are areas where we can >> find an agreement for this to happen. > > Thats an odd offer in this thread, but what amount are we talking about? > Suggest a project to the foundation board and an amount that you think is reasonable for the task. I know (and most of us) that you are qualified for almost anything FFmpeg related so just pick something that you would prefer to work on. Depending on the suggestion the board will then decide if we want to fund the project or not. As long as the project is a welcome contribution to the FFmpeg project as a whole I see no reason why it wouldn't be accepted. MvH Benjamin Larsson(Diego Biurrun even already suggested a project suitable for Michael, how nice) Stab and placate week later... I'm somewhat afraid of one thing. Not as a make-up, but rather as a not bad option to continue serious development of ffmpeg, Michael may agree to funded way of development, but there is no guarantee, that it won't be used against him in the future (present?). Actually same goes for the opposite, i.e. resigning. Uneasy situation. And still lack of at least one simple word from signatories as a whole team (not individuals alone) to the Michael bothers me. I'd like to hope that it was just done non-publicly...
Culmination point? Posted Jan 27, 2011 3:05 UTC (Thu) by przemoc (subscriber, #67594) [Link] I think that real consequences of "illegitimate takeover" (Arpad Gereoffy's words, the shortest possible description of recent actions taken in ffmpeg community) will be seen really soon. I agree that Michael got even less self-possessed which can be seen in his (IMHO inappropriate) burial jest (after Ben Littler's repartee Michael replied that he went over the top and later clarified that it was meant to be funny). He's maybe even a bit unstable right now, but I doubt that anyone being in his shoes would be totally unmoved by recent insanity in part of ffmpeg crew.Nicolas George criticized Micheal for insisting in using 'leader' label and indecisiveness of fulfilling leader's duties: I know you wanted to be funny, but there is a base of truth behind it: you seem to insist on keeping the title "leader" out of mischief and protest against the coup, while you said yourself a few days ago that you felt tired of the leading duties.Endorsing the self-appointed new leaders? WTF? That would mean he agrees to terrible way of "solving" problems. He obviously cannot do it. It's pretty clear already that Micheal will be "crucified" by part of ffmpeg developers. Coup was done week ago, let's forget about it? Or maybe revolutionist should be even praised? What's wrong with this world? He cannot even defend himself? Micheal is apparently cutthroat dictator making people take subverters side. Why there was no serious explanation of all the working behind Michael's back? At last Micheal sent assertive mail that should be sent long time ago, but only just a short time ago he got more information: The official repository is the videolan repository, the other repository will be removed from that page. This is a decission of me as leader of the project. This soap opera was going on for long enough and has caused tremendous harm already, carl practically left, ramiro too, i met him and he said he unsubscribed from all lists. i have dozends of mails from developers in my inbox that object to this and the people voting never knew they where voting about a takeover of ffmpeg. They belived they voted on a ultra secret compromise to bring mans back into the project which would have required me to loose leadership. Thats also why iam being deleadered by it its just a demand of mans to come back not the actual wish of the people signing. There never where 18 people who wanted me not to be leader, there where 18 people who considered the compromise of me loosing leadership and mans coming back in exchange to be worth a try. And several people refused to sign, some contacted me and told me they feel ashamed that their name is on that list. And all the rules for the new maintainers, they AFAIK where invented in a few hours on IRC while discussing other things thats why they are nonsensical selfcontradictionary rubish What is the first (public) reaction? Jason Garrett-Glaser's mail about backing Michael's opinion in private mails under particular condition and his stubbornness that will end in Jason's resign if he'll "manage to sneak back into the position of "leader""... On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >There never where 18 people who wanted me not to be leader, there where 18 >people who considered the compromise of me loosing leadership and mans coming >back in exchange to be worth a try. And several people refused to sign, some >contacted me and told me they feel ashamed that their name is on that list. I was one of this "some". I backed your opinions via private mail, but only under the condition that you stop this. You haven't stopped this -- instead, you've gone back to being your prior self in every possible worst sense of the phrase. >They belived they voted on a ultra secret compromise to bring mans back into the project "You're an incompetent leader who's drunk on power" has nothing to do with anyone except yourself. In fact, I would have probably been more supportive of the "compromise" if Mans wasn't involved and wasn't coming back. > The official repository is the videolan repository, the other repository will > be removed from that page. > This is a decission of me as leader of the project. >Iam also asking diego and mans to resign as roots with this mail. You are insisting that everyone else resign, yet you yourself still refuse to resign as "leader". This is ridiculous. You are even worse than Mans and Diego: you want everyone else to give a mile when you won't give a single inch. I trusted that you would try to learn something -- anything -- from your mistakes. I was wrong to do so. If you somehow get your way and manage to sneak back into the position of "leader", I'm out of the project. Jason P.S. You're still a better coder than I am, at least in the two hours a year you spend coding and not flaming | |||||||||||||