Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Sovereign Tech Fund

[Derek Buitenhuis <derek.buitenhuis@gmail.com>]

>> On 1/28/2024 3:25 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> As others have said, the whole model of using discrete projects here seems opposed to
>> the actual intent of the STF - maintained and stable OSS long term.
> 
> The whole suggestion here is based on what STF and SPI said. There was a conference
> between SPI and STF where they worked the details out.
> Also all the things SPI told us had STF in CC.

What SPI convinced STF is best is not necessarily the same.

Also notably missing here is the community (as in, more than just Thilo) having
any access to review, comment, or help direct this.

> I think you should try to bring the work you want funded into the framework
> that they told us to use. Instead of complaining

Vibes of "shut up and stop dissenting". Nice. I will not be sending any more replies.

>> Furthermore, we *already* have a bunch of money sitting in SPI funds that *is* suitable
>> for use on discete projects, but it never gets used. It is a poor way to encourage useful
>> work, IMO.
> 
> Theres a very big difference. we have around 100k USD in SPI
> 
> STF has a lower limit of 150.000 € so we actually need to ask them for
> at least 150k to be qualified IIUC
> And honestly if you reject that, i just dont understand you.
> "Estimated costs: The cost of the work described in the application must exceed €150,000 (current minimum)."
> 
> AT no point could we have done anything with SPI money in a similar
> magnitude. In fact trying to use SPI money for any work failed because of it
> not being enough.

I have yet to see an actual project of "this magnitude" materialize as a proposal.

- Derek
_______________________________________________
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".