[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/3] doc/community: Vote in the interest of the project (first part of Antons proposal)

[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/3] doc/community: Vote in the interest of the project (first part of Antons proposal)

[Michael Niedermayer]

Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
---
 doc/community.texi | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/community.texi b/doc/community.texi
index 90d2b6f366..8a38c6aca0 100644
--- a/doc/community.texi
+++ b/doc/community.texi
@@ -82,6 +82,8 @@ The TC has 2 modes of operation: a RFC one and an internal one.
 
 If the TC thinks it needs the input from the larger community, the TC can call for a RFC. Else, it can decide by itself.
 
+Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their view, best for the project.
+
 If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision.
 
 The decision to use a RFC process or an internal discussion is a discretionary decision of the TC.
-- 
2.17.1

_______________________________________________
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".

[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/3] doc/community: Conflict of interest recusal requirement (Similar to mid part of Antons proposal)

[Michael Niedermayer]

Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
---
 doc/community.texi | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/community.texi b/doc/community.texi
index 8a38c6aca0..fc22a8fa61 100644
--- a/doc/community.texi
+++ b/doc/community.texi
@@ -84,6 +84,9 @@ If the TC thinks it needs the input from the larger community, the TC can call f
 
 Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their view, best for the project.
 
+If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to the case, they must announce it
+and recuse themselves from the TC discussion and vote.
+
 If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision.
 
 The decision to use a RFC process or an internal discussion is a discretionary decision of the TC.
-- 
2.17.1

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/3] doc/community: Conflict of interest recusal requirement (Similar to mid part of Antons proposal)

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le tiistaina 27. helmikuuta 2024, 0.44.37 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> ---
>  doc/community.texi | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/community.texi b/doc/community.texi
> index 8a38c6aca0..fc22a8fa61 100644
> --- a/doc/community.texi
> +++ b/doc/community.texi
> @@ -84,6 +84,9 @@ If the TC thinks it needs the input from the larger
> community, the TC can call f
> 
>  Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
> view, best for the project.
> 
> +If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to the case,
> they must announce it
> +and recuse themselves from the TC discussion and vote.

It looks like the meaning and intent do not match up here. I would expect 
something like either of:

* If a TC member is aware of being in a conflict of interest with regards to 
the case, they must announce it and recuse themselves from the TC discussion 
and vote.

* If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to the case, 
they must announce it and the conflicted TC member(s) must recuse themselves 
from the TC discussion and vote.

But either way this leaves open what you do if somebody outside the TC asserts 
a conflict of interest against a TC member, or worse, if a conflict of interest 
is asserted post-facto. So in the end, while this rule seems well-meaning and 
agreeable, I don't see how you can avoid having conflicted TC member vote. 
Consequently, this should be a strong recommendation rather than a strict 
rule.

Again, the effective way to work-around this problem is to keep a large and 
diverse enough TC membership to offset the one or few hypothetical dishonest 
votes.

-- 
雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙
http://www.remlab.net/



_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/3] doc/community: Conflict of interest recusal requirement (Similar to mid part of Antons proposal)

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1918 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:19:03AM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le tiistaina 27. helmikuuta 2024, 0.44.37 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> > ---
> >  doc/community.texi | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/doc/community.texi b/doc/community.texi
> > index 8a38c6aca0..fc22a8fa61 100644
> > --- a/doc/community.texi
> > +++ b/doc/community.texi
> > @@ -84,6 +84,9 @@ If the TC thinks it needs the input from the larger
> > community, the TC can call f
> > 
> >  Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
> > view, best for the project.
> > 
> > +If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to the case,
> > they must announce it
> > +and recuse themselves from the TC discussion and vote.
> 
> It looks like the meaning and intent do not match up here. I would expect 
> something like either of:
> 

> * If a TC member is aware of being in a conflict of interest with regards to 
> the case, they must announce it and recuse themselves from the TC discussion 
> and vote.

This was the intended meaning, i will update my patch


[...]

> Again, the effective way to work-around this problem is to keep a large and 
> diverse enough TC membership to offset the one or few hypothetical dishonest 
> votes.

This doesnt work. The set of people is very specific, and they will always be
representatives of the community so when 60% of the community works for
companies which would benefit by FFmpeg not competing. There
would be no realistic way to have a committee that wasnt also 60% affected
by this. And for this we need a clear rule.

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Nations do behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives. 
-- Abba Eban

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/3] doc/community: Conflict of interest recusal requirement (Similar to mid part of Antons proposal)

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:46 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> > Again, the effective way to work-around this problem is to keep a large
> and
> > diverse enough TC membership to offset the one or few hypothetical
> dishonest
> > votes.
>
> This doesnt work. The set of people is very specific, and they will always
> be
> representatives of the community so when 60% of the community works for
> companies which would benefit by FFmpeg not competing. There
> would be no realistic way to have a committee that wasnt also 60% affected
> by this. And for this we need a clear rule.
>

This scenario is, also, not realistic.
-- 
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 2/3] doc/community: Conflict of interest recusal requirement (Similar to mid part of Antons proposal)

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1153 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 10:42:02AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:46 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> wrote:
> 
> > > Again, the effective way to work-around this problem is to keep a large
> > and
> > > diverse enough TC membership to offset the one or few hypothetical
> > dishonest
> > > votes.
> >
> > This doesnt work. The set of people is very specific, and they will always
> > be
> > representatives of the community so when 60% of the community works for
> > companies which would benefit by FFmpeg not competing. There
> > would be no realistic way to have a committee that wasnt also 60% affected
> > by this. And for this we need a clear rule.
> >
> 
> This scenario is, also, not realistic.

that may or may not be,

but rules cannot be applied at the discretion of the person who has
a conflicting interrest against FFmpeg

thx



[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

No human being will ever know the Truth, for even if they happen to say it
by chance, they would not even known they had done so. -- Xenophanes

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
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".

[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 3/3] doc/community: presumed conflict of interest (similar to antons last part of his proposal)

[Michael Niedermayer]

Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
---
 doc/community.texi | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/doc/community.texi b/doc/community.texi
index fc22a8fa61..aa68b5f97b 100644
--- a/doc/community.texi
+++ b/doc/community.texi
@@ -87,6 +87,9 @@ Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their view, b
 If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to the case, they must announce it
 and recuse themselves from the TC discussion and vote.
 
+A conflict of interest is presumed to occur when a TC member has a personal interest
+(e.g. financial) in a specific outcome of the case that differs from what is best for the project.
+
 If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision.
 
 The decision to use a RFC process or an internal discussion is a discretionary decision of the TC.
-- 
2.17.1

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/3] doc/community: Vote in the interest of the project (first part of Antons proposal)

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 631 bytes --]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> ---
>  doc/community.texi | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

I intend to apply the patchset tomorrow if there are no objections

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Old school: Use the lowest level language in which you can solve the problem
            conveniently.
New school: Use the highest level language in which the latest supercomputer
            can solve the problem without the user falling asleep waiting.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/3] doc/community: Vote in the interest of the project (first part of Antons proposal)

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le sunnuntaina 3. maaliskuuta 2024, 4.53.01 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> > ---
> > 
> >  doc/community.texi | 2 ++
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> I intend to apply the patchset tomorrow if there are no objections

You can't have a strict rule ("must") requiring something vague ("best for the 
project").

What is best for the project tomorrow may differ from today. What is best for 
the project w.r.t. Linux distributions may differ from that w.r.t. Windows 
users. What is best for long term maintainability and sustainability of the 
project does not align with the best publicity and functionality in the short 
term. It is also inherently both subjective and unknowable.

This sentence just creates fodder for future accusations of bad faith, 
hypocrisy, misjudgement against TC decisions. While the sentence is meaning 
well, it adds absolutely nothing of value.

-- 
Rémi Denis-Courmont
http://www.remlab.net/



_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/3] doc/community: Vote in the interest of the project (first part of Antons proposal)

[Michael Niedermayer]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2881 bytes --]

On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:05:49AM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le sunnuntaina 3. maaliskuuta 2024, 4.53.01 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  doc/community.texi | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > 
> > I intend to apply the patchset tomorrow if there are no objections
> 
> You can't have a strict rule ("must") requiring something vague ("best for the 
> project").

please see at the end of my reply


> 
> What is best for the project tomorrow may differ from today.

yes


> What is best for
> the project w.r.t. Linux distributions may differ from that w.r.t. Windows 
> users.

yes


> What is best for long term maintainability and sustainability of the
> project does not align with the best publicity and functionality in the short 
> term.

yes


> It is also inherently both subjective and unknowable.

we need to be precisse here.
"what is best for the project" is both subjective and unknowable, yes
but
"in their view" is for the decission maker not unknowable, i would
instead very much hope they know what their view is.


> 
> This sentence just creates fodder for future accusations of bad faith, 
> hypocrisy, misjudgement against TC decisions. While the sentence is meaning 
> well, it adds absolutely nothing of value.

This is standard
(now i dont know why googles first link ended up in australia but ok)

https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s181.html

"
    Good faith--directors and other officers
                (1)  A director or other officer of a corporation must exercise their powers and discharge their duties:
                        (a)  in good faith in the best interests of the corporation; and
                        (b)  for a proper purpose.
"

This uses "must", and thats actual law

IMO its perfectly reasonable to expect committee members to act in the best
interrest of FFmpeg.
Theres no "should" here, theres a "must" here
It should be clear to every adult that oppinions can widely differ and
that what one considers to be the best interrest will commonly be
different from someone else on another day.

Still theres a big difference between "should" act in the best interrest and
"must" act in teh best interrest.

with "should" someone could just not do it and we will see this.
People will not act against their own interrest unless they are required
to.

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

The real ebay dictionary, page 2
"100% positive feedback" - "All either got their money back or didnt complain"
"Best seller ever, very honest" - "Seller refunded buyer after failed scam"

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 251 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
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".

Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/3] doc/community: Vote in the interest of the project (first part of Antons proposal)

[Andreas Rheinhardt]

Michael Niedermayer:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
>> ---
>>  doc/community.texi | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> I intend to apply the patchset tomorrow if there are no objections
> 
> thx
> 

Gyan sent an alternative proposal which counts as objection.

- Andreas

_______________________________________________
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".