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

[Vittorio Giovara <vittorio.giovara@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:34 PM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 07:20:43PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-18 01:43:14)
> > > "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC"
> > > does IMHO not preclude commenting on a patch.
> > >
> > > For a disagreement we need 2 parties. For example one party who
> > > wants a patch in and one who blocks the patch. or 2 parties where both
> > > block the other.
> > >
> > > Being a party of a disagreement would not make anyones opinon invalid.
> >
> > Anything that goes to TC is a disagreement.
>
> probably, thats true, yes
>
>
> > Anyone who expressed an
> > opinion on the patch then is 'a party to the disagreement'.
>
> no, i dont see it that way
> A developer blocking a patch is a party to the disagreement
> So is the developer who calls the TC because of that.
>

Disagree. If that basically means that no patches will be ever blocked by
the members of the TC!
They should express the best technical excellence of the whole community,
not be stifled from participating in the discussion

If it helps, I'll block the patch so that Anton can vote in the TC.
Do you see how slippery (and insane) this interpretation of the rule
becomes?



> Similarly if you look at real world court cases
> parties to the lawsuit are the one who is filling the lawsuit and
> the defendant.
> The thousand people expressing an oppinion in some random place are
> not parties to the disagreement
>

This is a false dichotomy, we're not a court case where we're interpreting
the law, we're trying to solve a technical disagreement.


> More formally, you could define a "party to a disagreement" as
> all minimal sets of people whos non existence would resolve the
> disagreement
>

By that reasoning you shouldn't vote either since you touched basically all
of ffmpeg codebase!


> * 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.
>

Nobody is saying that!!!


> I dont think the GA has given that power to the TC.
>

Are you suggesting to have a vote to rewrite/reinterpret the rule?
-- 
Vittorio
_______________________________________________
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".