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 54C4F48C71 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 21:34:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 510C968C0F1; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:34:52 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B376C68AAC3 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 23:34:45 +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=UCdRQ7nP; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6ABDB2401C1 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:34:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id APTIfWWdPSot for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:34:44 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1708637684; bh=Fr+EwD7wdut/lQZaVKWlQuCBsHmlyszxFBk1rV3Wt8A=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=UCdRQ7nPVmUxQ23o4dg7RxQzsUy+eY5lgt5wFOZao7RKspQKTviEvmHty4gPqgjAq AxiERAbWmLw11oUNaEVWs5bGueIKdz/XNQgj3UjZztf/PmVMJ9UV79JT4b1ul7pCuZ LVOK9SHWzcvhN2y8EXsm2NIAd3586a5CiCvlqu2sboJnrEYcY0y+HpC3XCNFgbN6Oq mIfmQ7j4fx3tfBcN7lI9t7YDL3KefBWQ4qx/aE5OWO2+WPz4a07n3nj4E1fOJ12jIe 0eMJTLf8QieM8azQcBbobSIkmpRTwnoI+4EvC/R3JNfpcbMAt7XQ5j+7CFt+/CK6v9 zpo+EJdYV+Kmw== 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 ABC77240177 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:34:44 +0100 (CET) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8B6001601B9; Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:34:44 +0100 (CET) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: References: <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> <170841903359.27417.409422117260058401@lain.khirnov.net> <170842089279.31318.2654441079015212247@lain.khirnov.net> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 22:34:44 +0100 Message-ID: <170863768454.27417.11615467562887771221@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: Quoting Marton Balint (2024-02-20 20:32:19) > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > Quoting Marton Balint (2024-02-20 10:12:34) > >> We have no means to prove financial interest, because it is not public. > > > > We also have no means to prove that committee members are acting in the > > project's interest. > > > > E.g. if I had no qualms about being dishonest, I could always ask a > > friend to object to controversial patches in my place, so I wouldn't > > lose my vote, and nobody could prove it. > > > > In the end some things have to be taken on trust. > > My concern is bad mouthing others based on assumed financial interest and > endless discussion if that interest is "serious" or not. If your payjob > uses ffmpeg, or if you ever want money for some ffmpeg related work, that > is a financial interest right there. > > If somebody feels that voting would not be fair, he can always abstain. > I'd rather keep that fully trust based, to avoid rule interpretation > wars and discussions about assumed interests. > > An interest is not inherently bad, selfish contributions (financial > reasons or not) is a huge factor in open source. I'm deliberately phrasing it as financial interest *in a specific outcome*, not just being paid to work on the project in general. Also, in my updated proposal the conflict of interest is self-assessed by the TC member in question, which I think should address these concerns. > > > >> For practical reasons, using patch authorship is better. Or maybe a more > >> general solution against bias is somewhat increasing the number of people > >> in the TC, and removing this rule alltogether. > > > > I woould be concerned about making the TC too slow and unwieldy, it > > already takes a lot of effort to push any decisions through. Keep in > > mind that during all of its existence it only ever made two decisions, > > and one of them spent over a year in limbo. > > So with 7 people, it would have been two years? :) > > Have the TC meet weekly if there is an agenda, and have votes after > meeting. With more people it is not that big of a deal if somebody > cannot attend. And have a rule in place to resolve ties. It can be as > simple as to accept the proposal of the party who raised the issue to the > TC. Honestly, implementing this sounds like a significantly bigger project than I want (or have the resources) to do at this point. -- 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".