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 3195148CFD for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 16:07:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C78D68C601; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:07:53 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 02DE568BF78 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 18:07:47 +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=UdaXnAwv; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9E4C2401C1 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:07:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id R5tj3bVwBGNa for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:07:46 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1708704466; bh=YmG0pUh5qIjsxwkFKmgAk2ama013XyNnaAJYMwPV4o4=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=UdaXnAwvkOKMWC3+kOH1wlFIUalbM9TXxSk02mQSwDBAcIIpNMtJ/cr4I57pY0kl9 jvO743idSZnaHSSIu5LlWMDKhLrTw5AyWDBjCtqgfGhTwhEtYnWdKln5vPZtDYDqs6 WZXRLWd5jZLc0h2VB4vdlaYZmPcnLyCgpwuCRxoDtQJmfZkK/HIu6jJ3wwV19HzjMD wyNiI2uD4q47czoDptEISWKFevq9h24IZ3E2txopzXz4468bkO4Z0r+nmzrUEnlQOh w4/i1AVkeJ65zIm7JWpRRjN1W7+YazlzNtxHSJvwNvaJIgMzMn8SD+sQPU41/h2/1l IMJUpIWxk6zmg== 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 39172240177 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:07:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1EA631601B9; Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:07:46 +0100 (CET) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: <20240223140024.GF6420@pb2> References: <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> <20240223140024.GF6420@pb2> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:07:46 +0100 Message-ID: <170870446609.27417.14352908211767022154@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 Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-23 15:00:24) > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Hi, > > in the 'avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding' thread it became > > apparent that there is wide disagreement about the interpretation of > > this line in the TC rules: > > > > > If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should > > > recuse themselves from the decision. > > > > 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 > > > > I believe the best way to address this is to make the rule more > > explicit, so I propose that people with an opinion on the matter submit > > their preferred wording, and then we can have the GA vote on it. > > For the actual vote about changing the rules and the discussion of it. > Each option should provide a patch. > Otherwise you could have a whole new discussion after the vote how > to turn it into a change to the rules My proposal is an excerpt from a patch, just trimmed down to make it easier to read. And I don't see what could be ambiguous about it, you just remove one specific line and replace it with other text as proposed. -- 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".