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 9E0834989D for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:39:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id B946C68D13B; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:39:25 +0200 (EET) Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net (relay4-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.196]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7000B68D0DD for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 23:39:19 +0200 (EET) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97299E0004 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 21:39:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=niedermayer.cc; s=gm1; t=1708465158; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=EO71XUjTVLIM0ReTMFLraE+5TTfVcv0LkNarKuInGQg=; b=QKlMPQcNfqaZ68Gn2K8AnN40voatWvD4C0A6gzlyEUwJnTeybdzeqpYQYxfK4lnub2t6aV zabFdXG83x68IXW3HeJSJ3MldqnrhJE10SxJQrrzwna9dnNs4d5miP1rBt2uw4aMmj/1y8 50NkgdCXEc5wbKOJE7ofgM0pL8WdH7gtUQ7W4aQ2DoIEzne/+3h19C/sEJ6C9KT1BD6Mn/ BwAiNXR/f7M4GAV+g52pBqdQVujgbynTRGfuD5KPRDlzDfQrTXAz/95353aGWFW9+Qz5zG ZSRcyUM+NuO402n3nBHiGB+L9NTo7CLVMUiVepvzkH/IJpvFFoiJ2GlCIR/SQw== Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 22:39:17 +0100 From: Michael Niedermayer To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: <20240220213917.GV6420@pb2> References: <170807419472.21676.17214572018161936192@lain.khirnov.net> <6a46373c-3a6b-4490-9ae9-46d2a72a3e5a@gyani.pro> <170817255879.21676.17805665941049439864@lain.khirnov.net> <170819974399.21676.13449065399578350362@lain.khirnov.net> <20240218004314.GM6420@pb2> <170828044320.21676.10142270056126999587@lain.khirnov.net> <20240218223439.GP6420@pb2> <170837863557.27417.16524845266170993956@lain.khirnov.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <170837863557.27417.16524845266170993956@lain.khirnov.net> X-GND-Sasl: michael@niedermayer.cc Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0633282245668884863==" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --===============0633282245668884863== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="scfhh4LCYpuZ3K6s" Content-Disposition: inline --scfhh4LCYpuZ3K6s Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 10:37:15PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-18 23:34:39) [...] > > > > But I think it is reasonable that parties of a disagreement cannot = be > > > > the judge of the disagreement. > > >=20 > > > Why not? This is one of those truthy-sounding statements that does not > > > actually hold up to scrutiny. > >=20 > > * A disagreement implies that there are 2 parties > > * And we assume here that what one party wants is better for FFmpeg tha= n what the other wants. > > * The TC needs to find out which partys choice is better or suggest a 3= rd choice. > > * If one but not the other party is a member of the TC then this deciss= ion becomes biased if that member votes >=20 > This example is flawed in at least two following ways: >=20 > First, you keep comparing TC members to judges in a legal system. As I > said above - in a paragraph you ignored - I do not think that is a > meaningful comparison. We have no law, TC members are not judges and > decide based on their experience and opinions. well, TC members make decissions, lets call them decission makers then lets see how that would look so if we had judges and law we seem to agree that a decission maker cannot be a party to the very disagreement she decides on. lets take away the law so a courtroom with 5 judges, deciding on a persons fate, no more law every= one can choose as they prefer. The judge accusing another man of something, can now be a judge of that cas= e ? No, the removial of "the law" isnt making the common sense rule any less co= mmon sense so lets now not call teh judges "judges" anymore, and lets pick them identi= cally to how TC members are picked Does this change anything ? The decission maker accusing another man of something, can now be a decissi= on maker of that case ? No, the issue remains. A party to a disagreement cannot be decission maker = in the disagreement. There is bias and if the goal is a optimal decission we want no bias. >=20 > > Imagine a judge kills someone and judges himself innocent afterwards in= a panel of 5 judges >=20 > Second, in this example the judge in question has two roles in the > situation: that of a criminal who wants to avoid being found guilty and t= hat > of a judge who is supposed to find criminals guilty. The interests of > these roles are in conflict, hence we have a conflict of interest. >=20 > That does not translate to the situation we are actually dealing with. > My interests in my role as a patch reviewer and as a TC member are > exactly the same. There is thus no conflict of interest. i disagree A TC member who wants to block a patch and wants to decide if a patch shoul= d be blocked is in the same situation as a Judge who wants to sue someone and wants to judge that someone. Again, the judge being a party to a lawsuite cannot be judge in that lawsui= te Similarly a TC member initiating a conflict cannot judge in that same confl= ict The TC member surely does the same thing in both cases, he wants something like blocking a patch. Similarly the judge also wants to whatever is the goal of his lawsuite And there are in fact more problems Consider this: Normally we have PartyA and PartyB in a conflict and then we have 5 TC memb= ers who look into that, both parties can argue their case in front of the TC (p= ublically) and the TC then discusses and make a decission, possibly asking more people= an so on But now the case here changes we have PartyA and PartyTC Theres a disagreement between a developer and a TC member The TC member is part of the TC and discusses with the other 4 members, he = will support himself in all votes and potential private arguments. PartyA here has substantially worse chance to win even if PartyA is correct= and has the better solution. Iam sorry but i insist that the TC member in this case cannot act both as a= party to teh disagreement and as a member of the TC in the same disagreement. It is completely unfair to partyA in this example above, they are not on eq= ual ground. thx [...] --=20 Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB I have never wished to cater to the crowd; for what I know they do not approve, and what they approve I do not know. -- Epicurus --scfhh4LCYpuZ3K6s Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABEIAB0WIQSf8hKLFH72cwut8TNhHseHBAsPqwUCZdUb+wAKCRBhHseHBAsP qycvAJ97jI7vy1Qqpum1xrh16n/tQpRReACgki3ng94gsYNbT13JdgGgRrYft5w= =XxCL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --scfhh4LCYpuZ3K6s-- --===============0633282245668884863== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ 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". --===============0633282245668884863==--