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

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

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 2:17 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 11:48:59PM +0100, Hendrik Leppkes wrote:
> > 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"?
>
> I think you are mixing the concept of an oppinion and blocking a patch.
> following is how i see the concept
>
> If you state that you prefer a linked list but dont mind the patch as it is
> thats an oppinion
>
> If you state that you prefer a linked list and i tell you that i would
> prefer to keep an array and you say you are ok, again thats an oppinion
> the patch is not blocked
>
> If you state that you prefer a linked list and i tell you that i would
> prefer to keep an array and you now tell me that if i want an array i have
> to go to the TC then you are blocking the patch. You and me in this case
> are the cause of the TC being involved.
> Only at this point we would be parties to the disagreement IMHO
> and we cannot be the judge here
>
>
> >
> > What if multiple people had expressed disagreement with a patch, and
> > most of the TC was involved in the public discussion already? Do the
>
> The question would be who is actually blocking it and not just stating
> their oppinion.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> You certainly have a point but, again I think there are big differences
> between a TC oppinion and someone blocking a patch
>
> If a TC member states an oppinion and clearly explains the reasoning
> behind it
> that should have no impact on the TC members ability to vote. In fact it
> should
> lead to all parties discussing and resolving the conflict probably without
> the
> need to formally involve the TC
>
> IMHO, invoking the TC is already an exceptional situation and failure.
> and it shouldnt give the parties of that failure more influence in the
> decission.
> (which is another orthogonal reason why the parties of a conflict should
> not
>  be judges of the conflict)
>
> Its really strange.
>
> You know, if a judge files a lawsuit, that judge cannot be the judge in
> that lawsuit.
> This is a very simple concept.
> It seems some people here see "their friend" not being allowed to vote
> but thats not what this is about.
> If a TC member blocks a patch, that TC member cannot vote on how to resolve
> that blockage.
>
> If a TC member chooses not to block a patch so he retains the power in a
> potential future vote. Thats a game theoretic decission he makes to
> maximize
> his blocking power. But really if he doesnt block it it could be applied
> so this is not a logic decission. The logic decission is to block the patch
> if thats what he wants and if noone else is blocking it.
> game theoretically the example you provide above would never happen
> as there would never be more than 1 TC member blocking a patch.
>
> So IMO arguing that a person should be party to a disagreement and judge of
> it. But making this dependant on an argument where people have to act in an
> illogic way is really odd
>

i long for the day in which ffmpeg might actually seem like a functioning
community, where we would not constantly and needlessly bikeshed rules and
other politics,but that day is clearly not today
-- 
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".