From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by master.gitmailbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5026B4972A for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 18:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E8568D37F; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 20:56:04 +0200 (EET) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19FF868D1EB for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 20:55:58 +0200 (EET) X-ENS-nef-client: 129.199.129.80 ( name = phare.normalesup.org ) Received: from phare.normalesup.org (phare.normalesup.org [129.199.129.80]) by nef.ens.fr (8.14.4/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id 41IItvp7011980 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:55:57 +0100 Received: by phare.normalesup.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5562129537; Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:55:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:55:57 +0100 From: Nicolas George To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: References: <594a2da4-0693-483e-82ab-2924b16d8dbb@gyani.pro> <170819974399.21676.13449065399578350362@lain.khirnov.net> <20240218004314.GM6420@pb2> <3545566.iIbC2pHGDl@basile.remlab.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3545566.iIbC2pHGDl@basile.remlab.net> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:55:57 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: R=E9mi Denis-Courmont (12024-02-18): > This is an utterly absurd interpretation. By that logic, a TC member woul= d = > automatically become party to the disagreement by expressing an opinion w= ithin = > even the TC itself. This is the most hypocritical argument put forward in this discussion yet. > In fact, if you would read it maximally that way, any who = > has an opinion, even if they have not expressed it, would be a party. > = > So what then, the FFmpeg thought police? And you break your own record in the very next sentence. > You can argue that the rule is vague, and it is. But if anything, we can = at = > least eliminate absurd interpretations. The rule is not vague at all. > (And in any case, it says "should", = > not "must".) Indeed. I wondered when somebody dishonest would try to exploit that loophole. The obvious answer is: if somebody in the TC does not do what the rules say they SHOULD, then the general assembly SHOULD vote them out at the next election. Or earlier, because a vote of no confidence can be brought at any time. -- = Nicolas George _______________________________________________ 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".