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 CF7014984D for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:12:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D07968D3F7; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:12:43 +0200 (EET) Received: from iq.passwd.hu (iq.passwd.hu [217.27.212.140]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D33C68D2A2 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 11:12:37 +0200 (EET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by iq.passwd.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34AFFE9F64 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:12:37 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at passwd.hu Received: from iq.passwd.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (iq.passwd.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UMQaGKtiULA3 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:12:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from iq (iq [217.27.212.140]) by iq.passwd.hu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDD2BE194A for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:12:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 10:12:34 +0100 (CET) From: Marton Balint To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches In-Reply-To: <170841903359.27417.409422117260058401@lain.khirnov.net> Message-ID: References: <170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057@lain.khirnov.net> <170841903359.27417.409422117260058401@lain.khirnov.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Anton Khirnov wrote: > My personal opinion is that broad interpretations of the rule in > question are highly undesirable, as they punish TC members for active > participation in the project. And since TC members tend to be among the > most active contributors, this can substantially reduce our already low > review rate, and lead to other perverse incentives - e.g. TC members > hiding their opinions for fear of losing their vote. > > Moreover, I believe that arguments like "people should not sit in > judgement of their own patches" that sound common-sense reasonable on > the surface, are actually based on a misunderstanding of the notion of > conflict of interest and have no real basis. > > The mandate of TC members is to use their technical expertise and > opinions to judge what is best for the project. Why should that be in > conflict with a TC member writing a patch - again according to their > judgement of what is best for the project? I believe there is no > conflict here, and thus no reason TC members could not vote on their own > patches, as long as they wrote those patches in accordance with their > mandate. > >> 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 > > So IMO the only case that needs to be excluded is 6) - an actual > conflict of interest. I therefore propose the following wording changes: We have no means to prove financial interest, because it is not public. For practical reasons, using patch authorship is better. Or maybe a more general solution against bias is somewhat increasing the number of people in the TC, and removing this rule alltogether. Regards, Marton > > --- a/doc/community.texi > +++ b/doc/community.texi > -If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision. > > + Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their > + view, best for the project. If a TC member is affected by 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. > > -- > Anton Khirnov > _______________________________________________ > 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 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".