On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:41 PM, VDR User <user.vdr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab > <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The decision were already taken by the group. >> >> It should be noticed also that the public announcement took some time to >> be ready, since we all carefully reviewed it to reflect the understanding >> that the group had. >> >> Both API's work, and people needed to choose between one of the proposals. >> >> Each one there had enough time to read and understand each proposal, since >> the patches were available more than one week before the meeting, and >> everybody were aware that the decision are scheduled to happen during LPC. >> >> Each one voted based on their own technical analysis, on a meeting that >> took about 2:30 hours, on the day after the presentations. People had >> enough time there to discuss, explain their ideas with the help of a >> whiteboard, decide and improve the proposal. >> >> S2API was choosen, since it was considered the better proposal for >> everybody there. None of the presents voted for Multiproto. >> >> Now that the decision were already taken, it is not time anymore to argue >> in favor to any other proposals. We need to move ahead and finally add >> support for DVB-S2 and the remaining missing digital TV's at kernel. >> >> Thank you and everyone else involved on adding support for the missing >> standards. >> >> Let's move to the next step: finally add API changes and drivers for >> DVB-S2 and prepare support for the remaining missing standards. > > It's no secret to anyone that there has been foul play, and blatantly > clear there is bias against Manu himself, and multiproto as a result, > based on personal differences & past conflicts. You can't possibly > expect the dvb community to believe a fair & balanced meeting took > place to discuss these proposals when half the people there already > signed on for s2api, and the other half don't have the knowledge & > experience with dvb to make well-informed decisions. You can't > possibly think people will believe any of you (who've openly admitted > support for s2api) spent 2 seconds defending multiproto, or even > assessing the proposal from an unbias technical standpoint. > > It's very convenient that you've completely ignored multiple requests > for more in-depth details that actually prove your points have real > technical merit and aren't just the result of some self-interest > politics and b.s. Yet, you had no problem writing paragraphs about > how the decision has been made and everyone should just accept it. > Sorry, people aren't going to just accept it because this whole thing > has been tainted by misleading people, misrepresenting the truth, and > sometimes flat out lying. > > Valuable members of the community have turned, and are turning away > because of how poorly dvb has been maintained, and how self-serving > some people act. I'm thankful that more people are being exposed & > becoming aware of what's been going on in hopes that at the very least > some kind of steps will be taken to stop the misuse & abuse of power > at the front of the dvb train. > > Again, if there is truth to your claims that s2api is the best > technical solution, then convince us all by providing tangible proof > rather then expecting everyone to take your word for it while ignoring > our requests for such information. You have an obligation to the > community to justify your actions, and be held accountable for them. > There hasn't been much positive feedback here! How about let's talk to split the v4l and dvb development in order to not give Mauro the full authority over the whole 2 subsystems where he hardly anything contributed (to the second part). Don't see this as a flamewar, Andrew Morton and a few others are following that discussion now. Mauro as for you try to justify your step technically, the only point we've seen for now was from Patrick Boettcher (which was a good one from his side) but also the other involved people (within that 8 people group in Portland should point out their opinion and technical objections/reasons now). Officially it looks like you had 3 people supporting the Stevens proposal and 5 people who didn't know about the framework at all and explaining them that the DVB-S2 step is the better one to go whereas you had noone representing the multiproto path. Such a vote is highly doubtful then. Hans Hverkuil: I saw you in IRC that you support that proposal please also state out your opinion and/or ask your questions what/why things have been done like they are done in the multiproto tree and why you don't support it. It finally can really end up with a good solution either multiproto or S2 but everyone should understand and not only a few people. Markus _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
