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 091BA46FF6 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 06:45:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 452A068C7EF; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:45:07 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail8.parnet.fi (mail8.parnet.fi [77.234.108.134]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D049F68C7D3 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:45:00 +0300 (EEST) Received: from mail9.parnet.fi (mail9.parnet.fi [77.234.108.21]) by mail8.parnet.fi with ESMTP id 36P6ixF3002765-36P6ixF4002765 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:44:59 +0300 Received: from foo.martin.st (host-97-144.parnet.fi [77.234.97.144]) by mail9.parnet.fi (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F1AA1428 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:44:59 +0300 (EEST) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 09:44:58 +0300 (EEST) From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Martin_Storsj=F6?= To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8444ebba-8b38-1fc2-55a6-b7f4195ca13@martin.st> References: <20230714182835.66326-4-remi@remlab.net> <4497357.LvFx2qVVIh@basile.remlab.net> <2884373.PGHYOZE5d7@basile.remlab.net> <2404688.o4v6flLIFt@basile.remlab.net> <2178629.fXmMkjqrQc@basile.remlab.net> <13eaceb-33c1-e82f-be73-e469836debde@martin.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FE-Policy-ID: 3:14:2:SYSTEM Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [TC] checkasm: use pointers for start/stop functions 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, Lynne wrote: > I think, however, the process has become rather opaque in this case. > Usually, there has to be a clear writeup of the issue, with all context > removed, that all parties have to agree on is presentable to the TC > for guidelines. In the past, whenever developers have thrown in random > comments for a TC discussion, this has been followed, and the TC > has not responded, but what makes this case so special, when this > was also the case? This case was admittedly very opaque. I've seen numerous cases threatening to escalate disputes to the TC. The difference here was that an actual direct mail was sent to the TC requesting to take a stance on the matter to unblock the patch. It wasn't a case of the TC deciding on its own to get involved. Now admittedly, to follow correct procedures, the TC should have announced on the ML that we are discussing this issue and trying to make a decision. Unfortunately I didn't notice that part in the description of procedures until the discussion was done (and the patch review on the ML had progressed with a new patchset that made good progress anyway), but we wanted to make it publicly known that we had been invoked and actually had had a discussion on the matter and made a decision, as was requested. // Martin _______________________________________________ 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".