[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] clarifying the TC conflict of interest rule

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

Le maanantaina 26. helmikuuta 2024, 21.48.03 EET Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 2:17 PM Anton Khirnov <anton at khirnov.net> wrote:
> > Quoting Ronald S. Bultje (2024-02-26 19:12:45)
> > 
> > > That's essentially what I was suggesting: run a GA vote on your proposed
> > > amendment, and then run a separate GA vote on Nicolas' proposed
> > > amendment.
> > 
> > They don't seem orthogonal to me though, they both replace the same
> > disputed line and seem pretty much mutually exclusive.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> But I don't think we exclude votes based on that criteria.

Well no. But if Nicolas' proposal consists of replacing "should" with "must", 
then that is not a valid choice. At a minimum, the other part of the sentence 
would have to be reworded for clarity.

For the record, re himself stated that:
1) The maximalist interpretation of "[to] involve" is the correct one.
2) That his interpretation is the only correct one by virtue of being 
maximalist.

But then he also stated that Anton's and my "extreme" interpretations were 
wrong (to put it midly). Admittedly we brougth those forward only for the sake 
of reductio ad absurdum, but the thing is that they are even broader than his 
alleged One True Interpretation, contradicting both arguments that his is 
maximal and that the maximal one is correct.

But if people insist on voting on that, to be clear, it means that nobody on 
the TC ever can make a valid vote since (as pointed out a number of times now) 
expressing an opinion would count as being involved.

> We both appear to agree Nicolas should not be able to prevent a vote on
> your suggestion, but that is also true the other way around.

Why do you think it is better to have two separate votes vs a three-choice 
vote between no changes, Anton's, Nicolas'? Besides, if Anton's change were 
approved, then Nicolas' proposed change would no longer apply as it is, but 
that's really just the flip side of the argument above that it needs to be 
worded better.

-- 
雷米‧德尼-库尔蒙
http://www.remlab.net/