Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding

[Anton Khirnov <anton@khirnov.net>]

Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-18 01:43:14)
> "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC"
> does IMHO not preclude commenting on a patch.
> 
> For a disagreement we need 2 parties. For example one party who
> wants a patch in and one who blocks the patch. or 2 parties where both
> block the other.
> 
> Being a party of a disagreement would not make anyones opinon invalid.

Anything that goes to TC is a disagreement. Anyone who expressed an
opinion on the patch then is 'a party to the disagreement'.

> But I think it is reasonable that parties of a disagreement cannot be
> the judge of the disagreement.

Why not? This is one of those truthy-sounding statements that does not
actually hold up to scrutiny.

TC members are not supposed to be impartial judges, because there is no
body of law for us to interpret. TC members are elected for their
opinions. And I see no good reason why those opinions should suddenly
become invalid just because they've been expressed before.

And again, interpreting this rule in this way means that TC members
are incentivized not to review patches. Given that TC members are also
often among the most active contributors, is that really what you want?

-- 
Anton Khirnov
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel

To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-request@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".