On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 08:55:43PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-02-17 13:37:38) > > On 2024-02-17 05:52 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-02-17 12:46:27) > > >> As a TC member who is part of the disagreement, I believe your > > >> participation is recused. > > > No, I do not think "TC members who commented on a patch lose their right > > > to vote" is a reasonable interpretation of that rule. > > > > I refer to > > > > "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should > > recuse themselves from the decision" > > > > at > > > > https://ffmpeg.org/community.html#Announcement > > > > You clearly are one of the parties to the disagreement, and "recuse > > themselves from the decision" is self-explanatory. > > Such a maximalist interpretation makes no sense - why should my opinion > become invalid because I commented on a patch, "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC" does IMHO not preclude commenting on a patch. For a disagreement we need 2 parties. For example one party who wants a patch in and one who blocks the patch. or 2 parties where both block the other. Being a party of a disagreement would not make anyones opinon invalid. But I think it is reasonable that parties of a disagreement cannot be the judge of the disagreement. > but not if I kept it to > myself and let someone else object to your patch? I think the deatils of this would matter. If a TC member simply does nothing and has no involvement and someone else objects, sure thet TC member could vote. OTOH if a TC member asks someone else to object to hide a conflict of interrest and then votes. IMO Thats a severe breach of trust and that person should not be in any committee thx [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Breaking DRM is a little like attempting to break through a door even though the window is wide open and the only thing in the house is a bunch of things you dont want and which you would get tomorrow for free anyway