[FFmpeg-devel] Re: [POLL][VOTE] Sponsors & Funding

[Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4168 bytes --]

Hi Remi

On Thu, Oct 02, 2025 at 07:28:48PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> Le torstaina 2. lokakuuta 2025, 15.55.16 Itä-Euroopan kesäaika Michael 
> Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel a écrit :
> > "Yes"
> >  - The FFmpeg project should actively seek sponsors and funding.
> 
> Repeating myself but that sentence does not mean anything. How are we supposed 
> to vote on something so vague?
> 
> If FFmpeg is/becomes a legal entity of its, that sort of mission statement 
> could be included in the statutes. That could justify an FFmpeg foundation 
> funding trusted community members to attend tradeshows to look for sponsors 
> and funding, for example. But that sentence cannot be thrown like this on its 
> lonesome. Otherwise, FFmpeg is just a collection of assets such as trademarks, 
> domain names and hardware held by SPI or Fabrice. Assets can't "actively seek 
> sponsors".
> 

> I suppose that you mean the FFmpeg community.

yes


> But as Gyan already pointed out
> in previous threads, even that's poorly defined. And in any case, One Does Not 
> Simply compel the community to "actively seek sponsors". People can actively 
> seek sponsors already, and they can also choose not to. Voting one way or the 
> other will make no differences.

The intend here is more, to decide on the direction.
Do we, as a team, want to actively look for sponsors or not ?

Without this direction, its very hard for one person to talk to sponsors, while
another publically maybe says, "FFmpeg does not look for sponsors".

Its to establish a common direction.


> 
> >  - The money will be used for FFmpeg and the FFmpeg community. (Maintenance,
> > Development, Infra, Testing, Travel, Research, ...)

[...]

> 
> As for research, bluntly, this is too vague and open-ended. Normally research 
> has deliverables such as peer-reviewed papers or working code or whatever. 
> Also this is probably better handled via academia or via NLnet-type 
> foundations.

Each individual use of money, would be agreed by consensus or 2/3 majority.

But we need a list, that we can show to sponsors, so they understand what they
are paying for.


> 
> >     Employing people is complex as it requires compliance to local
> > regulations. Thus it should be expected that for employing developers, we
> > will likely need to work together with local companies. That is if we want
> > to employ someone in Country X we could partner with a company in Country X
> > which then employs the developer and SPI would pay that company.
> 
> True. But with that in mind, what's the difference between the "yes" and "no" 
> options? Developers can already be hired by local companies or run their own 
> consultancies. I believe some people here are already doing just that.

I think, i have failed to explain this clearly.

One can go to bigcorp and ask them to donate 100k per year to FFmpeg/SPI,
but with:

"Yes"
  We can say, that this extra money will be used to hire people,
  and for maintaince and development.
  A Company that depends on FFmpeg has a reason to spend 100k/y here, its tiny for
  many companies, and they make MUCH larger sums with their buisness depending on
  FFmpeg.

"No"
  Here we can just say, that we have used SPI money for travel and infra.
  And that SPI has been the intermediary of STF and GSoC for us. But we
  do not yet know what the additional money will be used for.
  I dont think many companies will agree to give us 100k/ year with such statement.

This vote would give a clear direction, which we can present to potential
sponsors.

So maybe the vote could be summarized in
Do we want to
    * hire people
    * pay for increased maintaince and development beyond the current capacity

If yes, we need to look for sponsors, if no, we cannot really look for sponsors.

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Homeopathy is like voting while filling the ballot out with transparent ink.
Sometimes the outcome one wanted occurs. Rarely its worse than filling out
a ballot properly.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 163 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list -- ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ffmpeg-devel-leave@ffmpeg.org