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 DA81049A32 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:53:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16F4268C7E4; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:53:04 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14D0268C308 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 18:52:58 +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=CREm/6aF; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B5F2401C1 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:52:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id FnbHKA5h7_4X for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:52:57 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1708966377; bh=NlU6wPiXn7lOLxw+tzPKFLQvgDSBPZwd4AD0CwDGsg0=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=CREm/6aF8LuMrmBebdqnARXuFaDHGRxR9Rpg9NOXXO1+BFKLTvIAlLVZ0XyAZ7qrp r1r2jNT178D4+lNJ9PfYtDiVSglgpiHSxOjDvrEpyOQ4goh3t4G7IWGDdfR+09dUbN 7bXayCU8jh+EU6yv3WbBR92RQhkoVtl8RD/R/RsCfXzBXiNxtr5k0eE+etQUSoMNG5 bVxdHZLScVe8CXOKF7LWFb5ouPy+bu+YdlGCin6TPdbEdTmPHJjw+ydUWY9Erzg+Ut qoOenV6+NaQDJwxNuT80GOKigqzzWJgcy8+mgrpxfdvY9T1RloL0e2DYIn+FyF73NX 0VLMtXP+l/uHg== 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 1EFA4240177 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:52:57 +0100 (CET) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F02421601B9; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:52:56 +0100 (CET) From: Anton Khirnov To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: <20240223232708.GJ6420@pb2> References: <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> <170841903359.27417.409422117260058401@lain.khirnov.net> <20240220215033.GB93170@haasn.xyz> <170863646063.27417.10776746571038243119@lain.khirnov.net> <20240223232708.GJ6420@pb2> Mail-Followup-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:52:56 +0100 Message-ID: <170896637695.29002.14771451562422231612@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: Hi Michael, Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-24 00:27:08) > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:14:20PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > Quoting Niklas Haas (2024-02-20 21:50:33) > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:50:33 +0100 Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > > + 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. > > > > > > My preferred wording would change "If a TC member is" to "If a TC member > > > feels they are" and "must" to "should". > > > > > > I read it as a common sense recommendation, not a legalese text. It is > > > ultimately up to the individual to judge whether they are acting in good > > > faith or not. > > > > Okay, that makes sense to me. I am then changing my proposal to: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their > > view, best for the project. If a TC member feels they are affected by a > > conflict of interest with regards to the case, they should 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. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > If someone wants a "stronger" version of this among the voting options, > > feel welcome to propose one. > > Lets take a look at "the line" > > "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision." > > There are 3 obvious choices here: > 1: (unchanged) "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision." > 2: (must) "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member must recuse themselves from the decision." > 3: (remove it) "" > > Thats what the vote should be about IMO. > > Then seperately, theres the question about the (unrelated) text you want to add > That too has 3 choices > 1. (unchanged) "" > 2. (should) "conflict of interest ... they should announce it and recuse themselves ..." > 3. (must) "conflict of interest ... they must announce it and recuse themselves ..." > > Thats what a 2nd independant vote should be _IF_ we dont already have > a unanimous agreement about this. > > Now honestly why this uses a "should" after apparently > this very dissussion here showed that "should" is interpreted differently > by different people, i dont know. > I mean either we want people to recuse themselves or we dont if specific > circumstances apply. It cannot be in the per persons free choice if they > recuse themselves in a conflict of interrest. > This just makes no sense. ... Ohh i have a financial interrest in the > outcome, i dont have to recuse myself, i only "should" ahh ok ... > > The "Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their view, best for the project." > I suspect you can just propose adding this and without any vote. > There may be unanimous agreement for this I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Do you want to propose another alternative for the vote? -- 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".