Re: [FFmpeg-devel] SWS cleanup / SPI Funding Suggestion

[James Almer <jamrial@gmail.com>]

On 10/14/2023 2:53 PM, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> On date Friday 2023-10-13 21:19:34 +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> Hi everyone
>>
>> I propose using 15k$ from SPI for funding sws cleanup work.
>> this is substantially less than what people belive this needs (see IRC logs from yesterday or so)
>> So it really is more a small price for a good deed and not proper payment.
>> This of course is only available to competent developers. (exact rules or how thats determined
>> would still need to be decided unless its a clear case)
>> Also the exact outcome and goal would need to be discussed by the community and whoever
>> does the work.
>> But some goals would probably be to make sws
>> * pleasent to work with
>> * similar speed or faster
>> * proper multithreading
>> * proper full colorspace convertion not ignoring gamma, primaries, ...
>> * clean / understandable modular design (maybe everything can be a "Filter" inside sws
>>    that get build into a chain)
>>
>> Proper payment (50k$ maybe) would be too much in relation to what SPI has ATM (150k$)
>>
>> Above all, this is just my oppinion, the actual SPI funding also would need to
>> be approved by the community. This can happen after a specific volunteer comes forth
>> or before, whichever way the community prefers.
> 
> Leaving apart the technical details about the implementation, this
> should be feasible within the SPI framework (although this would
> involve some paperwork and delays due to that).
> 
> It would be useful at this point to define the process to accept the
> proposal and potential candidates. We have a technical committee which
> might take the lead on that and probably have the last word on it,
> since "approved by the community" is a bit vague and there is the risk
> that there will be never an approval "from the community" because of
> diverging views, or that we get stuck at the design level.

"Approved by the community" would probably mean a vote by the GA if 
there's no clear consensus.

The technical committee should be left as a last resort, as usual, when 
there are two completely opposing views and no way to convince either 
party of the alternative.

> 
> As a start, probably there should be a design doc somewhere, discussed
> by the community and finally approved (by the technical committee??)
> before we present the request and candidate to SPI. In fact probably
> the design doc is the first thing a candidate might need to work on.
> 
> Also I'd avoid terms such as "rewrite" or "cleanup" since they have
> bad connotations, maybe let's call it "review" or "refinement".
> _______________________________________________
> 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".
_______________________________________________
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".