Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding

[Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4334 bytes --]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:48:59PM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:34 PM Michael Niedermayer
> <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >
> > * A disagreement implies that there are 2 parties
> > * And we assume here that what one party wants is better for FFmpeg than what the other wants.
> > * The TC needs to find out which partys choice is better or suggest a 3rd choice.
> > * If one but not the other party is a member of the TC then this decission becomes biased if that member votes
> >
> > Your interpretation suggests that the TC members are "above" everyone and should
> > prevail in arguments they have with others.
> >
> 
> Noone is above the rules, but just because someone has an opinion and
> shared it shouldn't disqualify them, because they were specifically
> voted into the TC for their opinions on technical matters.
> Would their opinion, and therefore their vote, change if someone else
> was seen as the person "blocking"?

I think you are mixing the concept of an oppinion and blocking a patch.
following is how i see the concept

If you state that you prefer a linked list but dont mind the patch as it is
thats an oppinion

If you state that you prefer a linked list and i tell you that i would
prefer to keep an array and you say you are ok, again thats an oppinion
the patch is not blocked

If you state that you prefer a linked list and i tell you that i would
prefer to keep an array and you now tell me that if i want an array i have
to go to the TC then you are blocking the patch. You and me in this case
are the cause of the TC being involved.
Only at this point we would be parties to the disagreement IMHO
and we cannot be the judge here


> 
> What if multiple people had expressed disagreement with a patch, and
> most of the TC was involved in the public discussion already? Do the

The question would be who is actually blocking it and not just stating
their oppinion.


> remaining "uninvolved" people on the TC get all the decision power? Or
> do we consider most of the TC already opposing it publicly as perhaps
> an indicator that the patch might not be the way to go?
> Thats what the TC was voted in for, to give their opinion on technical
> matters and decide if needed, so why deprive them of their opinion,
> just because they already stated it publicly? That makes no sense to
> me.

You certainly have a point but, again I think there are big differences
between a TC oppinion and someone blocking a patch

If a TC member states an oppinion and clearly explains the reasoning behind it
that should have no impact on the TC members ability to vote. In fact it should
lead to all parties discussing and resolving the conflict probably without the
need to formally involve the TC

IMHO, invoking the TC is already an exceptional situation and failure.
and it shouldnt give the parties of that failure more influence in the decission.
(which is another orthogonal reason why the parties of a conflict should not
 be judges of the conflict)

Its really strange.

You know, if a judge files a lawsuit, that judge cannot be the judge in
that lawsuit.
This is a very simple concept.
It seems some people here see "their friend" not being allowed to vote
but thats not what this is about.
If a TC member blocks a patch, that TC member cannot vote on how to resolve
that blockage.

If a TC member chooses not to block a patch so he retains the power in a
potential future vote. Thats a game theoretic decission he makes to maximize
his blocking power. But really if he doesnt block it it could be applied
so this is not a logic decission. The logic decission is to block the patch
if thats what he wants and if noone else is blocking it.
game theoretically the example you provide above would never happen
as there would never be more than 1 TC member blocking a patch.

So IMO arguing that a person should be party to a disagreement and judge of
it. But making this dependant on an argument where people have to act in an
illogic way is really odd

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

When you are offended at any man's fault, turn to yourself and study your
own failings. Then you will forget your anger. -- Epictetus

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
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".