Re: [FFmpeg-devel] Sovereign Tech Fund

["Jonatas L. Nogueira via ffmpeg-devel" <ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>]

Forgot to mention, but you also don't need to set the values yourself.
You can simply post "we're looking to have X task done, interested parties
please send us a quote" and see if it fits the budget.

--
Jonatas L. Nogueira (“jesusalva”)
Board of Directors Member
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.


On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 1:00 PM Jonatas L. Nogueira <jesusalva@spi-inc.org>
wrote:

> > The FFmpeg community was told about this three days ago.
>
> Fair enough if it's true (I'm an outsider, after all)
>
> > There are arguments in this very thread how we cannot discuss things in
> > detail and must instead ACT NOW OR ALL THE MONEY IS GONE. Naturally this
> > makes the mood more tense, especially given the other circumstances.
>
> What I noticed (as an external observator), was putting the cart ahead of
> the horse. There's no money right now, but STF is willing to grant around
> 200k if FFmpeg is able to submit a Scope of Work in time for their meeting
> (happening on Feb 14th, materials however should be submitted 48 hours
> before). The scope of work is, in other words, a letter of intentions of
> what to do with such money. They have already informed about the
> restrictions (e.g. should be maintenance or security related, that it is
> too early to ask for feature projects but it might be possible in the
> future, etc).
>
> A Scope of Work is a bit more than a wishlist because it assumes the work
> is actually going to be done, so it cannot be too overambitious. That's
> what needs to "act now or all the money is gone". The question currently
> presented is, "if FFmpeg had 200k euros to work with maintenance, what
> would FFmpeg do?" ─ this will become the Scope of Work (we can have people
> to word it into legalese later, if needed).
>
> Of course, all that will end in a Statement of Work (SOW) later,
> describing how the wishlist in the Scope of Work will be attained as
> everyone knows that money doesn't magically solve problems. And from what
> I've seen as an external observer, there is a lot of discussion pending for
> this. But that's alright, there's probably over a month for that. Of
> course, without a Scope of Work, there'll be no SOW, and any discussion
> made on this will become a waste of time.
>
> If I were the one doing it... I would first make a wishlist in a shared
> document with all tasks eligible (3~5 days, so completion until Feb 5th
> latest). There are time constraints, though, and FFmpeg takes decisions
> collectively, so... I would make a vote between Feb 5th and Feb 12th (yes,
> the deadline) to elect the tasks which will be on the Scope of Work. I
> would improvise a bit: ask the submitted tasks to also have a proponent
> (who is asking for the task to be done) and a budget (how much money the
> proponent thinks that will be enough to attain it). The budget here is
> nonsense, it is just to have a metric to decide how many options will go to
> the Scope of Work. The proponent is to answer questions the voters may have.
>
> With that laid out and once in motion, the remainder of discussion would
> be held. How much to pay the contributors, the actual budget for the
> approved projects, how it'll be tracked, what's more fair for deliverables,
> how they'll be checked, if you'll contract the developers directly or with
> an intermediary, etc. There's no point discussing any of that unless you're
> sure the scope of work can be delivered in time. Multiple Statements of
> Work are also possible, so there's no actual need for one-size-fits-all in
> those questions. If project A, B and C can be divided into commits but
> project D cannot, it's fine to have different rules for project D. Also why
> it doesn't make much sense to hold these discussions now, when you can't
> even answer what would be the projects.
>
> That, however, is not my call. I can provide suggestions, but actually
> coming with a Scope of Work in time is yours and yours alone.
>
> > So far it does not seem we have an abundance of volunteers, so it seems
> > more likely we'll struggle to spend all the money.
>
> Coincidentally, that happens a lot. No reason to let it hinder you,
> though, having money gives the option to make job postings, and you might
> even be able to ask for help in spi-general list.
>
> > only a minority of time is spent typing code.
>
> Don't I know it... I'm also a programmer for The Mana World, pretty
> familiar with "I changed a couple lines and now nothing works, spend two
> hours trying to figure out that I forgot a curly brace".
>
> That is among the discussions I believe FFmpeg should have, although you
> might want to have the Scope of Work rolling before starting this. (And
> there are many possible solutions, so I expect quite some time to be spent
> finding all of them and picking out the best one).
>
> If you start discussing how to properly pay for the hours spent hunting
> simple typo mistakes now, you'll never be able to tell STF what actually
> needs to be done in time.
>
> --
> Jonatas L. Nogueira (“jesusalva”)
> Board of Directors Member
> Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:17 PM Kieran Kunhya <kierank@obe.tv> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 14:10, Jonatas L. Nogueira via ffmpeg-devel <
>> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> > IMO hasty actions and avoidable drama may cause damage to the project
>>>
>>> What would be a hasty action? I've seen far too much people calling
>>> action
>>> over stuff discussed for weeks/months as "hasty" in attempt to stall into
>>> endless discussions, so you might want to clarify.
>>>
>>
>> The FFmpeg community was told about this three days ago.
>>
>> Kieran
>>
>
_______________________________________________
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".