[FFmpeg-devel] Sovereign Tech Fund

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Hi,

Le 4 février 2024 14:41:15 GMT+01:00, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> a écrit :
>Hi
>
>As said on IRC, i thought people knew it, but ‘the same person as before’ is Thilo.
>
>Ive updated the price design suggestion for the merge task, its 16€ / commit limited to 50k€
>this comes from looking at pauls fork which has around 500 commits in 2 months thus
>250 commits per month, 12 months, and if we allocate 50k that end with roughly 16€ / commit
>if activity stays equal.

It's very different if we're talking about librempeg or some other unspecified fork. I could make a fork that removes MMX et al, and claim that I'm merging a fork.

>The task has ATM no developer on it. If a developer adds himself, he can change teh task
>and specify what he proposes to merge.
>
>I am totally perplexed why every dot on every i is such a big thing.

That is the whole point of a statement of work. And I agree that it's tedious and possibly outright annoying...

Indeed I don't think that a semiformal open-source community with a lot of strong and varied opinions will carry such dotting of all i's very effectively. That has been one of the arguments for delegating this to a contracting IT company rather than to FFmpeg-devel and SPI.

>We are doing GSoC for a decade and noone cared about voting about anything in it.

Again, I don't think it's a fair comparison. GSoC rules are a given set by Google. Maintenance is not allowed nor are vague broadly defined tasks. Also the mentor payment is not really a proper compensation, nor is it intended to be.

>The difference here is FFmpeg developers are benefiting from the money.

That's a pretty major difference.

>We send an application and a scope of work.

That's exactly why we need to have a precise scope of work to vote on this.