Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] clarifying the TC conflict of interest rule

[Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2897 bytes --]

Hi Anton

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 12:40:52PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-24 03:21:50)
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 01:52:55PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Michael,
> > 
> > > following up on the previous discussion in this thread - if you,
> > > personally, would like to vote for a different option than those
> > > suggested so far, please propose one.
> > 
> > The goal of the vote is to find the option which most people prefer.
> > Not the option that I personally prefer.
> 
> My point is that you should suggest options that you personally prefer,
> not invent options for some imaginary people who cannot speak for
> themselves. There is no evidence of them existing.
> 
> > You also added 3 options yourself, which i presume you dont all
> > intend to vote for yourself
> 
> Keeping the line without change and deleting it entirely seem like
> obvious "null" choices to me, but I can remove them if you prefer.

Thats exactly my point, you add
* your option
* several default options you expect not to win
* then gyans and nicolas options
* and then you refuse to add my 2 suggested options

This is not a democratic vote at this point. You have to add my 2 options too


> 
> > Simply omiting opposing options is not how Democracy works
> 
> You're misrepresenting my point. It's not about "opposing" options, I
> have no issue with adding those suggested by Nicolas or Gyan. I have an
> issue with options that nobody actually wants.

this started with you being asked to recuse yourself from a TC vote by
multiple people (at least 3 IIRC)
and now you want to change the rules after exactly that
and its not options that support you nor is it NULL options that you
object to. Its also not nicolas suggestion (which is probably too radical
to find a majority).
That leaves your and gyans suggestion the only 2 that are likely to win.

I think the 2 options i list are very good compromise options. They
use clearer language (no "should", no rules apply only when one feels it
but also no 2 year exclusion)


> 
> > You could discuss with others and try to find a smaller set of options
> > that still represent all cases the team may want.
> 
> The discussion already happened.

As a member of the team i remember no discussion to reduce the number of options.
I remember only you here that you decided by yourself not to include them


> We have all the options that actual
> people have actually wanted.

I certainly am an actual person and i do want my option that iam proposing.


> So kindly stop this obstructionism.

So kindly add the 2 options i asked for.

thx

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

"I am not trying to be anyone's saviour, I'm trying to think about the
 future and not be sad" - Elon Musk


[-- 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".