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 871DF49A7F for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 22:47:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id E936268CA1B; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:47:27 +0200 (EET) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (relay3-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.195]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03A8F68C891 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:47:21 +0200 (EET) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36EF960003 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2024 22:47:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=niedermayer.cc; s=gm1; t=1708987641; 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=n15SMJDWeGJg4g2u66BS9D9X6bAOxplBYB96WUxhPAg=; b=JKPZbnjyQc+TFq9HOVK8twujCXEhOPRy/UyrWIZHLxT/cHU99phPE/5TNsLnUzrEldGxG4 5hfaoM2+YUnZn7mSTbq6H/n1iYWBvKe2ol1mZAcSrbMdMoSe3B0Wgi7h0Jk7Jn2OUISKyg h5Z62EirOVSRm33HWKxoxTALt6xbUklp5i+7RxIe8zShxBNTDl89BzftkQXE/UyuS2DTr2 4upUffv8YpXkcggGTlvFmE515WoCvQ+4+9ab9NNgaXa2lUkCJEoBYVz9vqio2QFoVVKeq2 z7r+/nhwgu66mSmENWo/wdM6+j+OsXmagPM6fQ8Wi1cMVs97ThOXM6J9qyREKA== Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 23:47:20 +0100 From: Michael Niedermayer To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: <20240226224720.GW6420@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> <170896637695.29002.14771451562422231612@lain.khirnov.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <170896637695.29002.14771451562422231612@lain.khirnov.net> X-GND-Sasl: michael@niedermayer.cc 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5798693296509005760==" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --===============5798693296509005760== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="5fvMH8jOZJDmGd5t" Content-Disposition: inline --5fvMH8jOZJDmGd5t Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 05:52:56PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote: > 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 con= flict of > > > > > + interest with regards to the case, they must announce it and re= cuse > > > > > + themselves from the TC discussion and vote. A conflict of inter= est is > > > > > + presumed to occur when a TC member has a personal interest (e.g. > > > > > + financial) in a specific outcome of the case. > > > >=20 > > > > My preferred wording would change "If a TC member is" to "If a TC m= ember > > > > feels they are" and "must" to "should". > > > >=20 > > > > 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. > > >=20 > > > 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 th= eir > > > 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. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------= --- > > >=20 > > > If someone wants a "stronger" version of this among the voting option= s, > > > feel welcome to propose one. > >=20 > > Lets take a look at "the line" > >=20 > > "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should re= cuse themselves from the decision." > >=20 > > There are 3 obvious choices here: > > 1: (unchanged) "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that m= ember should recuse themselves from the decision." > > 2: (must) "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that m= ember must recuse themselves from the decision." > > 3: (remove it) "" > >=20 > > Thats what the vote should be about IMO. > >=20 > > Then seperately, theres the question about the (unrelated) text you wan= t to add > > That too has 3 choices > > 1. (unchanged) "" > > 2. (should) "conflict of interest ... they should announce it and re= cuse themselves ..." > > 3. (must) "conflict of interest ... they must announce it and re= cuse themselves ..." > >=20 > > Thats what a 2nd independant vote should be _IF_ we dont already have > > a unanimous agreement about this. > >=20 > > Now honestly why this uses a "should" after apparently > > this very dissussion here showed that "should" is interpreted different= ly > > 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 ... > >=20 > > 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 >=20 > I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Look at the 3 patches i just posted. I suspect we can move alot closer to what you suggest without a vote but simply by consensus And then do a vote just on what remains >=20 > Do you want to propose another alternative for the vote? If theres something remaining that we do not agree on then yes thx [...] --=20 Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. -- Gandalf --5fvMH8jOZJDmGd5t Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABEIAB0WIQSf8hKLFH72cwut8TNhHseHBAsPqwUCZd0U8gAKCRBhHseHBAsP q2IoAJ4yLL19MlGgpiA40zy2P0gq1pIk5wCdGTI2twkScvuJAkOghbePBSKDD0M= =a6tb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5fvMH8jOZJDmGd5t-- --===============5798693296509005760== 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". --===============5798693296509005760==--