[FFmpeg-devel] Sovereign Tech Fund

[Rémi Denis-Courmont]

	Hi,

Le keskiviikkona 31. tammikuuta 2024, 16.10.02 EET Jonatas L. Nogueira via 
ffmpeg-devel a écrit :
> > IMO hasty actions and avoidable drama may cause damage to the project
> 
> What would be a hasty action? I've seen far too much people calling action
> over stuff discussed for weeks/months as "hasty" in attempt to stall into
> endless discussions, so you might want to clarify.

Would you care to clarify which astronomical body do you count weeks and 
months in? I believe that it is customary to use Earth units when you do not 
specify. And in this case, the topic was brought to the community just about 
0.5 week, or 0.11 month ago.

Sarcasm aside, I take that to mean that SPI has been involved with those 
discussions for months in a private and closed process. Michael asserted that 
an open inclusive process is better than the usual closed approach whence the 
funding goes through a company.

It looks to me that those SPI discussions were just as opaque and closed, and 
all the talk of openess is just pretense. It does not help that Michael, and 
now you too, misrepresent any challenge to SPI proposed *process* as an 
attempt to reject the idea of STF sponsorship, under the convenient pretext 
that there is not enough time.


This is further aggravated by the context that Michael brought forward the 
idea of funding developers through SPI 3 months ago (in actual Earth units). 
From your statement, I have to infer that Thilo, Michael and SPI already knew 
of the STF plan and concealed that key piece of contextual information back 
then.

In hindsight, it feels hypocritical to me that they were arguing for the SPI 
path, and against the corporate path, on the basis of openess already then, to 
be honest.


I can only agree with Anton that this looks like an attempt to strongarm the 
community. This is ostensibly being to ignore all the objections that were 
already brought in October and are being brought again now, with the 
complicity of SPI. I can't say that this looks well on SPI, but that's just my 
personal opinion.


With all that said, I don't think anybody will attempt to prevent this from 
happening (if they even can?). But that will take place without the consent of 
the GA, without any legitimacy on the claims of openess and inclusiveness, and 
obviously without any form of preclearance from the technical appropriateness 
of the resulting code contributions.



-- 
レミ・デニ-クールモン
http://www.remlab.net/