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 6A44C4987D for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 16:07:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DFD768D1E4; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:07:41 +0200 (EET) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0A6A68C7F2 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:07:34 +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 41KG7Xe5026335 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:07:34 +0100 Received: by phare.normalesup.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E32AC29536; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:07:33 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:07:33 +0100 From: Nicolas George To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Message-ID: References: <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Tue, 20 Feb 2024 17:07:34 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] clarifying the TC conflict of interest rule 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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Anton Khirnov (12024-02-20): > Hi, > in the 'avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding' thread it became > apparent that there is wide disagreement about the interpretation of > this line in the TC rules: > > > If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should > > recuse themselves from the decision. > > The word 'involves' in it can be intepreted a variety of very different > ways, to apply to TC members who e.g.: > 1) authored the changes that are being objected to > 2) are objecting to the changes > 3) have any opinion on the changes, either positive or negative > 4) have previously voiced an opinion that would apply to the changes > 5) authored the code that is being modified > 6) have a financial or other similar interest in a specific outcome of > the disagreement > > I believe the best way to address this is to make the rule more > explicit, so I propose that people with an opinion on the matter submit > their preferred wording, and then we can have the GA vote on it. Considering that the role of the TC, like any body of this kind, is not only to *decide* but to *convince* the involved parties that the decision is *fair*, Considering that to achieve that goal, the rules must not only exclude real conflicts of interest but even the appearance of bias, Considering that sitting on the TC is not a *right*, does not mean the member is *above* the other developers, but rather a *duty*, Considering that the TC has several members who take up the duty if one or more members are recused or recuse themselves, Considering that therefore it is best for the trust in the system to exclude preventively all members of the TC who might exhibit a bias or the suspicion of a bias to let decide the members who clearly had no pre-conception on the issue, I propose the very extensive rule that follows: Any member of the TC who had a strong opinion on the question raised before it was raised should recuse themselves. In particular, must recuse themselves any member of the TC who: - participated in the discussion (on the ML, on IRC or elsewhere) in a specific direction (minor comments and questions being acceptable); - has a personal interest in the outcome; - is, was recently or soon will be employed by an entity having a personal interest in the outcome or has any kind of hierarchical relationship with such entity. Failure to do so would result, upon discovery, into the exclusion of all FFmpeg governance bodies, including the general assembly, for a duration of no less than five years. Additionally, any member of the general assembly can recuse any member of the TC without having to provide a reason. If the application of these rules result in all members of the TC recused or if the remaining members do not feel comfortable being too few, that means the project is in a crisis of trust that needs to be resolved by the general assembly. -- 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".