Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding

[Hendrik Leppkes <h.leppkes@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:34 PM Michael Niedermayer
<michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
>
> * A disagreement implies that there are 2 parties
> * And we assume here that what one party wants is better for FFmpeg than what the other wants.
> * The TC needs to find out which partys choice is better or suggest a 3rd choice.
> * If one but not the other party is a member of the TC then this decission becomes biased if that member votes
>
> Your interpretation suggests that the TC members are "above" everyone and should
> prevail in arguments they have with others.
>

Noone is above the rules, but just because someone has an opinion and
shared it shouldn't disqualify them, because they were specifically
voted into the TC for their opinions on technical matters.
Would their opinion, and therefore their vote, change if someone else
was seen as the person "blocking"?

What if multiple people had expressed disagreement with a patch, and
most of the TC was involved in the public discussion already? Do the
remaining "uninvolved" people on the TC get all the decision power? Or
do we consider most of the TC already opposing it publicly as perhaps
an indicator that the patch might not be the way to go?
Thats what the TC was voted in for, to give their opinion on technical
matters and decide if needed, so why deprive them of their opinion,
just because they already stated it publicly? That makes no sense to
me.

- Hendrik
_______________________________________________
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".