[FFmpeg-devel] Re: [RFC] Funded Task Ideas

[Timo Rothenpieler via ffmpeg-devel <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>]

On 06/11/2025 09:40, Nicolas George via ffmpeg-devel wrote:
> Rémi Denis-Courmont (HE12025-11-04):
>>  From a technical standpoint, that seems very agreeable indeed. But at
>> the same time, it sounds unreasonable to expect that of a bounty
>> claimant.
> 
> Can you elaborate why you think that? We set the rules.
> 
>> AFAICT, the only way to resolve that contradiction is to not have
>> bounties for features that require design decisions at all. Otherwise
>> problems like the one you claim of the channel layout API are just
>> bound to repeat eventually.
>>
>> That's not to say that they can't be sponsored some way, but not the
>> bounty way.
>>
>> In fact, I tend to be against bounties in general. At least that
>> should not be the default model, IMO.
> 
> The channel layout API was not the result of a bounty, IIRC. AFAIK, we
> do not know publicly how it was funded, or even if. We obviously have no
> power to prevent somebody to work on a >100 patch series alone in their
> free time, but unlike funded work there is no incentive to work alone.
> 
> I would agree with you to exclude things that require design from
> bounties, but note that it would exclude the task discussed presently,
> as “improve the filter negotiation around hardware filters” is mostly
> design.
> 
Couldn't we simply have any design-discussions and decisions before the 
bounty is started, so the design becomes part of what the bounty is 
posted for?
_______________________________________________
ffmpeg-devel mailing list -- ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ffmpeg-devel-leave@ffmpeg.org