[FFmpeg-devel] Sovereign Tech Fund

[Jonatas L. Nogueira]

Again, this sounds like a misunderstanding.

The SOW is subservient to the merge, not the other way around. In other
words, the SOW don't require you to merge, but when/if you do merge, then
the SOW will require the payment to the contractor, which SPI handles. So
the SOW makes clear that if FFmpeg refuses to merge, there'll be no payment.

This is also why there's no need to review the invoices, and no risk of a
legitimate invoice being rejected: Because the deliverable will likely be
the commit (unless the GA objects beforehand and asks SPI to use something
else), so until it (the MR/PR) is accepted, there's no invoice to start
with. And as STF is footing the bill, there's no reason to FFmpeg concern
itself if it turned out expensive or not when reviewing, and can focus in
actually improving the program (SPI and STF will place some budget limits,
so contributors/contractors know what to expect and the money won't run
out).

The goal of the SOW (and of having SPI onboard) is to allow the GA to focus
on stuff actually relevant to FFmpeg (like what's going to be merged) and
delegate the worldly concerns like payments and contracts to SPI. Who is
signing the contracts (and thus being bound and tied to it) is SPI.

This is why it sounds a lot like a misunderstanding. What is actually
required from the GA is what the GA does — managing and leading FFmpeg.
That means deciding aspects which SPI cannot and will not decide for you,
like the scope of work ("what do you want done and sponsored by STF?"), and
what SPI cannot answer for you (such as how FFmpeg does things).

Do note that if someone do a MR/PR and then the technical committee or the
GA refuse to merge, without a SOW, almost every court (in the US or in
Germany) will force FFmpeg to pay not only the invoice but also the legal
costs. That would be unacceptable for SPI, as it puts other projects in
risk as well. We must kindly request that FFmpeg's General Assembly avoid
such dangerous behavior.

Feel free to make any other questions you may have,
Att.,

Jonatas L. Nogueira (“Jesusalva”)
SPI Board of Directors

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024, 12:02 Kieran Kunhya <kierank at obe.tv> wrote:

>
>> >> [...] the GA definitly cannot object to an invoice for a project that
>> the GA approved previously.
>> > "The General Assembly is sovereign and legitimate for all its decisions
>> regarding the FFmpeg project."
>>
>> When working with a contract (and a SOW), the General Assembly won't be
>> able to block an invoice.
>> Because the General Assembly will already have exercised its sovereignty
>> before the work started.
>> And unless the GA becomes a nation, any court of law would uphold the
>> contract.
>>
>
> In this project, acceptance of a patch is based on the technical contents
> of a patch, not a few vague paragraphs in a SoW. These decisions are made
> by the Technical Committee and the General Assembly.
>
> Tying the project contractually is unacceptable.
>
> There are plenty of "corporate" open source projects where this is fine,
> but there is a reason we are not one of those full of corporate friendly
> code like binary blobs, intrinsics, SDKs etc.
>
> Kieran
>
>>