On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:19:03AM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le tiistaina 27. helmikuuta 2024, 0.44.37 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> > ---
> >  doc/community.texi | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/doc/community.texi b/doc/community.texi
> > index 8a38c6aca0..fc22a8fa61 100644
> > --- a/doc/community.texi
> > +++ b/doc/community.texi
> > @@ -84,6 +84,9 @@ If the TC thinks it needs the input from the larger
> > community, the TC can call f
> > 
> >  Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
> > view, best for the project.
> > 
> > +If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to the case,
> > they must announce it
> > +and recuse themselves from the TC discussion and vote.
> 
> It looks like the meaning and intent do not match up here. I would expect 
> something like either of:
> 

> * If a TC member is aware of being in a conflict of interest with regards to 
> the case, they must announce it and recuse themselves from the TC discussion 
> and vote.

This was the intended meaning, i will update my patch


[...]

> Again, the effective way to work-around this problem is to keep a large and 
> diverse enough TC membership to offset the one or few hypothetical dishonest 
> votes.

This doesnt work. The set of people is very specific, and they will always be
representatives of the community so when 60% of the community works for
companies which would benefit by FFmpeg not competing. There
would be no realistic way to have a committee that wasnt also 60% affected
by this. And for this we need a clear rule.

thx

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

Nations do behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. 
-- Abba Eban