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

[Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg@gyani.pro>]

On 2024-02-18 11:33 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-02-18 05:06:30)
>> b) what "maximalist" interpretation?
> A non-maximalist interpretation would be that a TC member is only
> excluded from voting when they authored the patch that is being
> disputed.

If the promulgators meant to only prevent proposers of the disputed 
change to not take part, then
the verbiage would be different.

In looking up how this clause came to be present, I came across the 
following messages:

https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2020-December/273443.html
(Nicolas George originally proposes this clause - wording is more 
restrictive)

https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021-January/274822.html
(this one is interesting, you objected to the clause but on the grounds 
that it was all-encompassing i.e.  anyone commenting on the dispute was 
potentially subjected to recusal and referred to some 'model' 
discussion, so your describing my reading as maximalist is weird since 
that is how you read it - you just happen to object to this rule)

https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021-January/274826.html
(Ronald clarifies that "involved" should be constrained to just be one 
of the two parties -- of which you happen to be one)

There's the matter of what the rule currently is, distinct from what it 
should be. What it ideally should be is that the decision should be 
taken by a fresh set of eyes consisting of those who haven't become or 
are seen to be publicly invested in the outcome. So the TC should have a 
set of alternates - those who can make up the quorum and constitute an 
odd number of voters when some from the first 5 are recused.

Regards,
Gyan

_______________________________________________
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".