[FFmpeg-devel] SWS cleanup / SPI Funding Suggestion

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 09:50:41PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le perjantaina 13. lokakuuta 2023, 22.19.34 EEST Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > But some goals would probably be to make sws
> > * pleasent to work with
> > * similar speed or faster
> > * proper multithreading
> > * proper full colorspace convertion not ignoring gamma, primaries, ...
> > * clean / understandable modular design (maybe everything can be a "Filter"
> > inside sws that get build into a chain)
> 
> It sounds very nice. But it also sounds very fuzzy and subjective. Unless you 
> can put this in more objective terms such as would be expected of a statement 
> of work, all the while not compromising the intent of the sponsorship, I would 
> advise against using foundation funds.

What i had in mind was that the developer who wants to work on this would
provide a offer that is more clearly defined.


> 
> But first...
> 
> > Proper payment (50k$ maybe) would be too much in relation to what SPI has
> > ATM (150k$)
> 
> In my opinion, not "paying properly" is morally wrong, and sets a very bad 
> example that it is acceptable not to pay developers properly.

It can be "proper" depending on where the developer is from, what she exactly
will do and how much time she will need. Also the developer may have other
sources of payment for this work or may benefit from a better swscale directly
or want to work on this volunteerly and just needs a little extra push.

I dont think its correct to view this in isolation as a
commercial US based software development contract. (i did make this mistake)


> 
> Also it is really not that much money. I suppose that the yearly revenues are 
> even only a fraction of that balance. If so, I would argue that it is not 
> financially reasonable, doubly so when the overall world economy is in a rather 
> iffy situation. If it were up to me, I would keep that money for infrastructure 
> and other fees, purposeful hardware donations and travel.

all the SPI money stuff is public.

But IMO the really important part is a different one. Not how much money we
have in SPI from donations today. But how much we could have if we USE the
money.
Why would someone donate to FFmpeg ? we have enough money for hw & travel.
If we use it to improve FFmpeg suddenly there is a reason to donate and also
theres a reason for us to ask for donations.
Only when we use the money and actively seek donations can we know what amount
of money would be available.

Also not using the money ever is almost certainly not what the people donating
wanted. And many different developers did over the last years indicate the need
for more solid financial sustainability. both SPI and FFlabs can be a parts in
this. Rejecting SPI seems not wise. Having multiple sources of funding seems a
good thing.


>
> Lastly using foundation funds to sponsor specific project may open a pandora 
> box.

FFlabs opened that already i think


> What happens if more than one credible developer wants to take up the
> project?

Then 15k$ was too much


> Or if other developers demand that their other reasonable clean-up
> projects be funded too?

they should ask IMHO


> If the revenue and balance were much higher, you could
> hire all of them. But you can't, and then the simplest and safest way to avoid 
> moral hazards is to hire nobody.

Let us all starve because if we start fishing and eating fish it might just be
that there are not enough fish

Whats the worst that can happen ?
We fund a few projects, we ask for donations a slight bit more actively,
maybe a news entry on the webpage pointing to what work was possible from
donations.
and it doesnt work out and our funds decrease from 120k with funding 5+ projects
to 60k. and at that point we return to hw and travel only use of the money


> 
> N.B.: I am not part of the GA, and I have neither the expertise and 
> credibility nor the time and motivation to take up this project, so that's 
> just my free advice.

your comments have always been interresting, even if i might disagree
with them !

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Frequently ignored answer#1 FFmpeg bugs should be sent to our bugtracker. User
questions about the command line tools should be sent to the ffmpeg-user ML.
And questions about how to use libav* should be sent to the libav-user ML.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20231017/c0ea775a/attachment.sig>