[FFmpeg-devel] [TC] checkasm: use pointers for start/stop functions

[Martin Storsjö]

On Tue, 25 Jul 2023, Lynne wrote:

> I think, however, the process has become rather opaque in this case.
> Usually, there has to be a clear writeup of the issue, with all context
> removed, that all parties have to agree on is presentable to the TC
> for guidelines. In the past, whenever developers have thrown in random
> comments for a TC discussion, this has been followed, and the TC
> has not responded, but what makes this case so special, when this
> was also the case?

This case was admittedly very opaque. I've seen numerous cases threatening 
to escalate disputes to the TC. The difference here was that an actual 
direct mail was sent to the TC requesting to take a stance on the matter 
to unblock the patch. It wasn't a case of the TC deciding on its own to 
get involved.

Now admittedly, to follow correct procedures, the TC should have announced 
on the ML that we are discussing this issue and trying to make a decision. 
Unfortunately I didn't notice that part in the description of procedures 
until the discussion was done (and the patch review on the ML had 
progressed with a new patchset that made good progress anyway), but we 
wanted to make it publicly known that we had been invoked and actually had 
had a discussion on the matter and made a decision, as was requested.

// Martin