[FFmpeg-devel] Sovereign Tech Fund

[Jonatas L. Nogueira]

Please keep in mind we're a public charity using public money from
taxpayers, which means we need a criteria for payments and that said
payments must be issued objectively. The GA might be able to distribute
money with subjective criterias... But not this specific money which is
being discussed. I mean, anyone would get mad if their elected officials
did that with tax money, so obviously the same will extend here. (Remember
the time when an infamous mayor used public money to fix only the roads
surrounding his home? Yeah, let's not do this, alright?)

If commits are a no-go because FFmpeg has internal governance issues on how
those happen, we can think of something else, as long as it retains the
objectiveness expected from the use of public money. But we're putting the
cart ahead of the horse. Please don't get bogged down by the details, move
forward with the scope of work — that's the written version of how STF
funds can serve both STF as FFmpeg's purposes. A journey of a thousand
miles begins with a single step, if you focus on the future steps you'll
trip, fall, and lose the opportunity for the sponsorship.

There are only a couple weeks longer to finish the Scope of Work, and that
blocks pretty much everything. STF said itself that the other details can
be discussed later.


Michael: It's not very dissimilar, no. X.Org recently made something
similar to Outreachy, the Endless Vacations of Code program (EVoC), if you
prefer to make it more similar to that it might be possible.

A few things to keep in mind in such a case: The stipend is fixed and
agreed beforehand, there are less reports and payments to make, you can
only hire in an educational capability (so not the staff you're looking
for), it is less suitable for continuous tasks (which was the original
issue), and you still need the Scope of Work before it begins.

I believe you can actually do both via contracts as via education programs
if you wanted, but the latter might be of limited use to you.

Att.,
--
Jonatas L. Nogueira (“jesusalva”)
Board of Directors Member
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.


On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 3:32 PM Kieran Kunhya <kierank at obe.tv> wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 21:47, Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kieran
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 08:42:00PM +0000, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2024, 20:37 Kieran Kunhya, <kierank at obe.tv> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Both work fine really. For example iam not employed by FFlabs and the
>> work
>> > >> i did for them is just by sending invoices, while what i do qualifies
>> > >> maintenance probably close to 100%.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Fflabs is a private company that can choose however it likes how to
>> > > distribute its funds. STF/SPI/FFmpeg are not the same.
>> > >
>> > > Would you like every invoice you make to be on this mailing list and
>> > > discussed in depth in public? And if that invoice was voted against
>> by the
>> > > GA what would you do?
>> > >
>> > > Kieran
>> > >
>> >
>> > Remember the outcry about SDR that literally drove people away from the
>> > project? Well imagine that for one of your invoices.
>>
>> Do you mean it would drive them away because of how much or how little i
>> work for ?
>> Or becuase of what i work for ?
>>
>
> You refused to acknowledge the public outcry over SDR for months and
> pushed patches the community clearly objected to (see andreas thread).
>
> That could clearly apply to invoiced work that the community disagreed
> with. What would you do then? You weren't willing to compromise last time
> for your hobby, what makes you willing to compromise in that situation?
>
> I mean it basically happened already with SDR, just without an invoice.
>
> "I think you should try to bring the work you want funded into the
> framework
> that they told us to use. Instead of complaining"
>
> And now you follow the same tactics with Derek. Accusing people of
> disagree with you of spreading resentment.
>
> Kieran
>
> Sent from my mobile device
>