[vlc-devel] Update on the VLC project

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 23:24:40 +0200, Jean-Baptiste Kempf <jb at videolan.org>
wrote:
>> > As you and I just agreed upon, the technical decision process is the
>> > least of our problems. A technical arbitration committee wouldn't
>> > help with the lack of orientation for PR/legal action, the lack of
>> > orientation for technical developement, the lack of roadmap, the lack
>> > of orientation for fostering our third-party developer community, and
>> > the lack of management of personal (as in, not technical) conflicts.
>> 
>> I don't disagree, and I presume JB neither. But I don't see this
getting 
>> fixed. And if it gets fixed, in other words, if VLC gets proper
>> sponsors,
>> others will^Wmight complain that the process has been hijacked by some
>> company
>> that is not listening to the community, not open, whatever...
> 
> I am doing a lot on:
>  - PR (Lemonde twice, lepoint, figaro, engadget, unixmen, etc...)
>  - communication and SEO: the website has never had more traffic,
>  - legal (Hadopi, DMCA, LCEN, DRM, patents)
>  - partnerships (SF, Microsoft, AMD, nVidia, ATI, Intel, ADC)
>  - support and help to newcomers
>  - relicensing to get more corporate users around libVLC and such
>  - starting a company to employ the core developers.

That's very good but that's all PR and legal stuff, not development, which
is what my point was about.

The git is managed very much according to the Bazaar model. There is no
roadmap. This is probably fine for the project, but the fact is that there
is no roadmap and no steering of development.

Release management is a very opaque thing steered by you in cooperation
with Felix. (The only time I was allowed to manage the release, I was
trying to stick a weekly status update, and to follow the agreed time line.
I have never seen any other releaase manager do that before or afterward.)

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
Sent from my collocated server