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 2CD79468B2 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 08:51:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BA268D21B; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:51:23 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 272DA68D3D2 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:51:15 +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=jH3RW9/Y; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2450240DA9 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:51:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id aA0QftWZxX_I for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:51:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1708419072; bh=/nsdsDjNib2fHHKfb+wxAM9SXpiXG8my+WCQb3dT4R8=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=jH3RW9/YJG/qeZDIO7aAr7uO6dVVYl1gd40FIOBRdG/Todqb58FHGg95wK4KEBhVz GR3BOBpB/aOC5VT/6oASzuH+n5lOXEG8351/SW6SaChsUnQBVXv7IKnJ6Lam3ymhPj bC8ZQGFnxbsIqmZxyvIr3KqZnflvjQXj8eIGrkuJoYyG8qpRb0QkUlkRwkdtf2OLIO RHCoJ1nuvTxkYclIiUVGmk0j8mSiBPmtij6aVNXh6OxYix+P1e8gNPgUUKbMUPDYyr 7yQo4uG+FkOkb5AOz9snr+HINyOSa3bX027C/5qlpmSd4x/krOxkCM9rBLI+S18zie y7Y4fqEY2iUkQ== 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 60408240177 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:51:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 987EC1601BA; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:50:33 +0100 (CET) From: Anton Khirnov To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org In-Reply-To: <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> References: <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> Mail-Followup-To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:50:33 +0100 Message-ID: <170841903359.27417.409422117260058401@lain.khirnov.net> User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] clarifying the TC conflict of interest rule 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: My personal opinion is that broad interpretations of the rule in question are highly undesirable, as they punish TC members for active participation in the project. And since TC members tend to be among the most active contributors, this can substantially reduce our already low review rate, and lead to other perverse incentives - e.g. TC members hiding their opinions for fear of losing their vote. Moreover, I believe that arguments like "people should not sit in judgement of their own patches" that sound common-sense reasonable on the surface, are actually based on a misunderstanding of the notion of conflict of interest and have no real basis. The mandate of TC members is to use their technical expertise and opinions to judge what is best for the project. Why should that be in conflict with a TC member writing a patch - again according to their judgement of what is best for the project? I believe there is no conflict here, and thus no reason TC members could not vote on their own patches, as long as they wrote those patches in accordance with their mandate. > The word 'involves' in it can be intepreted a variety of very different > ways, to apply to TC members who e.g.: > 1) authored the changes that are being objected to > 2) are objecting to the changes > 3) have any opinion on the changes, either positive or negative > 4) have previously voiced an opinion that would apply to the changes > 5) authored the code that is being modified > 6) have a financial or other similar interest in a specific outcome of > the disagreement So IMO the only case that needs to be excluded is 6) - an actual conflict of interest. I therefore propose the following wording changes: --- a/doc/community.texi +++ b/doc/community.texi -If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision. + Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their + view, best for the project. If a TC member is affected by a conflict of + interest with regards to the case, they must announce it and recuse + themselves from the TC discussion and vote. A conflict of interest is + presumed to occur when a TC member has a personal interest (e.g. + financial) in a specific outcome of the case. -- 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".