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 7186E483A3 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 17:33:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF89668D09C; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 19:33:19 +0200 (EET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net (red.khirnov.net [176.97.15.12]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF9D068BBB0 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 19:33:13 +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=gGuJBXaY; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail0.khirnov.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AE2924048D for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:33:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail0.khirnov.net ([IPv6:::1]) by localhost (mail0.khirnov.net [IPv6:::1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id CuCRjbX1bxur for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:33:12 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=khirnov.net; s=mail; t=1709314392; bh=MQRvw2NtqEqUZGQMjXXX3l/sTUDaDztKeeZLAO3jNdk=; h=Subject:From:To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=gGuJBXaYw+Dc0xuEMwIJShSWbX6Zv9VonlE4U88431v0mf/wmD12EdsPH5R+/YXU4 58jBBrWEeITCytT6SGquBkwwmFxihv9QAEM5MPq2BR/uj4Akt/XF2b16Cn2lJ6yq3A TPgrpN4ClBkdjyfPSgv5uNFIAQCZ2GKroKoN6y0vSqOhmRmnBq0wsQHTb6OMsas18i b5JZITTlW3Jbgc5hbsCbaKWvcfhP6+LnLnMKAs8pl0MvGyyHPk56AMC2NXv+Ps6fDj AW2NSihHoajp2MMSnmC5AxyqX46Uv8L+pfqweExJm6xbiBA4pZSUjAOrLPjfD4U3MP xC6MEWA50yNOg== 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 B5101240177 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:33:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by lain.khirnov.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9005E1601B9; Fri, 1 Mar 2024 18:33:12 +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: Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:33:12 +0100 Message-ID: <170931439255.29002.12138406678517187858@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 all, it seems the discussion died down, so I intend to start the vote on Monday (2024-03-04). The vote description will be as follows: There is disagreement about the appropriateness and interpretation of the following sentence in Technical Committee rules (doc/community.texi): > If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member > should recuse themselves from the decision. (see thread starting from [1] for more details) How should this sentence be changed? Rank the options below in your order of preference. [1] https://lists.ffmpeg.org//pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2024-February/321792.html Message-Id <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> The options I see proposed so far are: * * * 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. * Any member of the TC who had a strong opinion on the question raised before it was raised should recuse themselves. In particular, must recuse themselves any member of the TC who: - participated in the discussion (on the ML, on IRC or elsewhere) in a specific direction (minor comments and questions being acceptable); - has a personal interest in the outcome; - is, was recently or soon will be employed by an entity having a personal interest in the outcome or has any kind of hierarchical relationship with such entity. Failure to do so would result, upon discovery, into the exclusion of all FFmpeg governance bodies, including the general assembly, for a duration of no less than five years. Additionally, any member of the general assembly can recuse any member of the TC without having to provide a reason. If the application of these rules result in all members of the TC recused or if the remaining members do not feel comfortable being too few, that means the project is in a crisis of trust that needs to be resolved by the general assembly. If you wish to propose another option (or I missed one in this thread), please let me know ASAP. Cheers, -- 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".