From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F95497EA for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:37:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13F2768D3F0; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 23:37:25 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90E7A68D1EE for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 23:37:18 +0200 (EET) Authentication-Results: mail0.khirnov.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=khirnov.net header.i=@khirnov.net header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=rh4Ot+yc; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A401240DA9 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:37:18 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id UaaIZau28Pmy for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:37:17 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1708378637; bh=V2AtSuF8IFeS1G8nB8vAq0N0xtOrUFq+46YQ9HhbHTc=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=rh4Ot+ycEMz9m+orh80Gn6WqDKjQZcbWqUTmCth7Zy05vrst5HhizFj7y4BL4RwgB yN565g6PMkKusE3DZCfiAos7Fzr1Ldx9UyMpNvq2NfVuOe0u3tvRLP/RifnkaQhfCJ tTxO14okM0iPxJNOvSifsPHx0cEvO5A7pfzhxtWdH2HMcsT9ArJPY4RSRWjFr39CL8 QzpEAsn92UQHrg5iVCtc37yRgQUdX4TU5DFq6ZpxqQPITguv1Sb37Iyhjac4dRmAnE H1W7ojsFn+XyQt7xDxxwueEVW5bOl5Kv9WfGQtgJwTodgitsIwvJ22wO3tsnhoFx5x O1zaH7cD/l+0w== Received: from lain.khirnov.net (lain.khirnov.net [IPv6:2001:67c:1138:4306::3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "lain.khirnov.net", Issuer "smtp.khirnov.net SMTP CA" (verified OK)) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66EFB240177 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:37:17 +0100 (CET) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9207D1601B9; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:37:15 +0100 (CET) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: <20240218223439.GP6420@pb2> References: <0c3c8b9b-927e-470d-9272-67536279ba15@gyani.pro> <170801340414.21676.5189683358387742257@lain.khirnov.net> <170807419472.21676.17214572018161936192@lain.khirnov.net> <6a46373c-3a6b-4490-9ae9-46d2a72a3e5a@gyani.pro> <170817255879.21676.17805665941049439864@lain.khirnov.net> <170819974399.21676.13449065399578350362@lain.khirnov.net> <20240218004314.GM6420@pb2> <170828044320.21676.10142270056126999587@lain.khirnov.net> <20240218223439.GP6420@pb2> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 22:37:15 +0100 Message-ID: <170837863557.27417.16524845266170993956@lain.khirnov.net> User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-18 23:34:39) > More formally, you could define a "party to a disagreement" as > all minimal sets of people whos non existence would resolve the disagreement That is a useless definition in practice, because it is unknowable. It is very common that developers to not bother voicing their opinion when someone else is doing that already. E.g. in this very case Andreas prompted me to reply to the patch, presumably because he also does not want it to go in in its current form. And yet if he, or someone else, had argued forcefully against the patch, I probably would not have - not out of some political calculations, but simply because it saves me time. Then my TC vote would not be questioned and we would not be having this discussion at all. It seems absurd to me that TC members should be prevented from voting based on such random factors. > > > 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. > > * A disagreement implies that there are 2 parties > * And we assume here that what one party wants is better for FFmpeg than what the other wants. > * The TC needs to find out which partys choice is better or suggest a 3rd choice. > * If one but not the other party is a member of the TC then this decission becomes biased if that member votes This example is flawed in at least two following ways: First, you keep comparing TC members to judges in a legal system. As I said above - in a paragraph you ignored - I do not think that is a meaningful comparison. We have no law, TC members are not judges and decide based on their experience and opinions. > Imagine a judge kills someone and judges himself innocent afterwards in a panel of 5 judges Second, in this example the judge in question has two roles in the situation: that of a criminal who wants to avoid being found guilty and that of a judge who is supposed to find criminals guilty. The interests of these roles are in conflict, hence we have a conflict of interest. That does not translate to the situation we are actually dealing with. My interests in my role as a patch reviewer and as a TC member are exactly the same. There is thus no conflict of interest. There might have been conflict of interest if e.g. I was being paid for ensuring the code works a certain specfic way, but I am not. I am explaining all this in such detail because people in this thread keep using this term apparently without realizing that in order to have a conflict of interest there must in fact be multiple interests that are in conflict, not just a person having multiple roles at once. > Your interpretation suggests that the TC members are "above" everyone and should > prevail in arguments they have with others. I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion, it does not follow from anything I wrote. -- 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".