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

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

On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 8:02 PM Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg@gyani.pro> wrote:

>
>
> On 2024-02-18 11:33 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-02-18 05:06:30)
> >> b) what "maximalist" interpretation?
> > A non-maximalist interpretation would be that a TC member is only
> > excluded from voting when they authored the patch that is being
> > disputed.
>
> If the promulgators meant to only prevent proposers of the disputed
> change to not take part, then
> the verbiage would be different.
>
> In looking up how this clause came to be present, I came across the
> following messages:
>
> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2020-December/273443.html
> (Nicolas George originally proposes this clause - wording is more
> restrictive)
>
> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021-January/274822.html
> (this one is interesting, you objected to the clause but on the grounds
> that it was all-encompassing i.e.  anyone commenting on the dispute was
> potentially subjected to recusal and referred to some 'model'
> discussion, so your describing my reading as maximalist is weird since
> that is how you read it - you just happen to object to this rule)
>
> https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021-January/274826.html
> (Ronald clarifies that "involved" should be constrained to just be one
> of the two parties -- of which you happen to be one)
>
> There's the matter of what the rule currently is, distinct from what it
> should be. What it ideally should be is that the decision should be
> taken by a fresh set of eyes consisting of those who haven't become or
> are seen to be publicly invested in the outcome. So the TC should have a
> set of alternates - those who can make up the quorum and constitute an
> odd number of voters when some from the first 5 are recused.
>

I'd like to offer a lighter interpretation of the rule, the mailing list is
the common playing ground, where discussions and disagreements can be had.
In case of a technical "maximalist" disagreement, then either party can
invoke the TC to judge on the matter. If anyone in the TC is involved in
the patch, as if it's an author or significantly contributed to it, then
they should step away from voting. In other words the "level of
involvement" rule takes place at the TC level, not at the ffmpeg-devel
discussion. Also consider that even in a vote recusal, the member's
arguments will still be read and by all likelihood taken into consideration
by the TC, so yours seems to be a literal interpretation of the rule,
instead of the spirit of the rule, which in my opinion matters more.
-- 
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".