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 231A348497 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 02:50:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54847680276; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 04:50:09 +0200 (EET) Received: from relay9-d.mail.gandi.net (relay9-d.mail.gandi.net [217.70.183.199]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78B8468D4DB for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 04:50:02 +0200 (EET) Received: by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFDACFF803 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2024 02:50:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=niedermayer.cc; s=gm1; t=1709607002; 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=qfvYb2khzK0UuyXLUZ9uLV88STzn7z4eJzyhyJec/DY=; b=DlTIpCkyCJGW1RHUm6hGVi3d5TF77cIel600a8Uq1LVRYoic2YPwKpggZzrwJhGyurF6bC u3q8dlxFcrYQY0GHsi4rUo0n8Haxsq3xEqhMi9WCddXFR6xwGs9MmGJRLDUdPqN1WN8q0V 7UeI7ex5U3HJh6wSZOV0577JbXtvYArsMxxbqEe46SjM91mxfI8aj7OEB3jWs/dmaLF5CW J786nBoyzkiwetB6oV5L8xOU4czPkPAX1ZAArGhFvOxwqzc0DHzOFL6IgI0tkb0BklClzg 69Qfhml+SiKVC+S2lctxUzwU114Os91FG4xkHpq4t2TsGn/Ma6Fd2kQmu6O4Hw== Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 03:50:01 +0100 From: Michael Niedermayer To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: <20240305025001.GA6420@pb2> References: <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> <170931439255.29002.12138406678517187858@lain.khirnov.net> <20240303024933.GO6420@pb2> <20240304005745.GX6420@pb2> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: 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="===============0930392688826713008==" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: --===============0930392688826713008== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hhVS5OHszyaXLP/H" Content-Disposition: inline --hhVS5OHszyaXLP/H Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 10:45:02AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:57=E2=80=AFAM Michael Niedermayer > wrote: >=20 > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 03:49:33AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > [...] > > > > > +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. > > > > please replace this in my proposal by this (as it clearer states what t= he > > intend is) > > > > > * 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. > > > > (also as you can see we have active discussions here, the vote is IMHO > > premature) > > >=20 > we literally had premature voting for STF, despite multiple discussions > taking place during the time The STF opertunity had a deadline. Also we can already start discussing what shall be done when the next grant opertunity comes. I dont know if we will be accepted, so its possible 1. that if we are rejected that we will hear of that narrowly before the next deadline. 2. there is always the chance for more opertunities, we should be ready to know what we want next time > I don't see how a parallel thread here should stop the proposed vote now > please let's stop filibustering and just move on to voting voting on what ? With a simple yes/no vote one can maybe just vote but this is a complex change to the committee rules about conflict of interrest, who can vote and who not, if everyone can just flip a coin and decide or if theres a rule to follow. If members can vote on things they themselves are involved in, in their own disagreements they have with others. A discussion allows people to find others points of view, and refine their own. Its essential even if no consensus is found, dont you agree ? Iam not blocking the vote btw, i suggested several options for it. What i think is that a real discussion would make sense before the vote if no such discussion happens and the vote moves forward with all options then that will work out too i guess. thx [...] --=20 Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony. -- Heraclitus --hhVS5OHszyaXLP/H Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABEIAB0WIQSf8hKLFH72cwut8TNhHseHBAsPqwUCZeaIVQAKCRBhHseHBAsP q55vAJ968vaprw0cVhEDOA7JFU1PaFn8DQCeMP7L2KnEU417RF8qT4acIvBAZmY= =BjTj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hhVS5OHszyaXLP/H-- --===============0930392688826713008== 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". --===============0930392688826713008==--