[FFmpeg-devel] Sovereign Tech Fund

Wed Jan 31 19:04:20 EET 2024

> I take that to mean that SPI has been involved with those discussions for
months in a private and closed process

Not really, however STF did ask for a meeting with SPI concerning the
possibility to sponsor FFmpeg on January 18th (so roughly two weeks ago).
To make clear, the request was on the 15th, the actual meeting on the 18th.
There was some back-and-forth between both, Thilo and Michael commented on
some specifics as STF or SPI asked, and we concluded SPI could indeed
receive a sponsorship from STF on behalf of FFmpeg project on January 23th.

Not long after, STF confirmed to SPI that it would be discussed in Feb 14th
internally and that FFmpeg should send a Scope of Work by the 12th in order
to confirm the sponsorship. That request was sent on Jan 25th. I'm not sure
when this information was sent to this mailing list, but Michael and Thilo
were informed on the same day.

That's what happened recently on the SPI side in any Earthly time metric.

But I should mention that in July 2023, Stefano and our contractors reached
out to me and the vice president asking for, among other things, the Master
Service Agreement which SPI uses and some general and everyday discussions
about SPI policies regarding the payment of individual
contractors/developers. I believe they also mentioned the possibility of
getting a sponsorship from STF in the future, but discussions were centered
on how SPI could pay for individual developers, which is why I didn't
remember about this until I searched for it today. I guess you could say
SPI was "aware" of the possibility since then. The first and last message
from this message chain were on July 11th and July 23rd respectively,
although I assume they made questions to non-board members before reaching
out for SPI's VP and me. There was no further contact with SPI about that
between July 24th and January 15th.

Miscommunication happens. Do not assume malice, if you need any further
information from SPI just reach out, we'll be happy to provide.

> 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.

Just in case, it was STF who asked for a Scope of Work to be presented by
February 12th. I'm pretty sure it is possible to ask them about the
possibility of postponing the topic for their next meeting (which I assume
to be in March) ─ STF may decline, though, and it might not be possible to
turn back on this decision or postpone further. I'm not STF's contact, it
is someone from FFmpeg who is, so they'll need to do this. (also why I
didn't mention that earlier).

SPI is not conducting these discussions, after all. That's something you
have to decide by yourselves.

> This is ostensibly being to ignore all the objections that were already
brought in October [...]

SPI is not aware of any such objections.

> But that will take place without the consent of the GA

I'm not sure SPI would accept the sponsorship from STF without the consent
of the GA, although we do expect to hear from Stefano the position FFmpeg
is going to take.

Which does mean that if STF sends funds to SPI but Stefano says he doesn't
know what they're about, SPI will return the money post-haste (and will be
less willing to receive potentially unwanted money later, as returning
funds is not without costs).

> 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.

SPI usually doesn't *do* anything until it is asked to. We were aware in
July 2023 that FFmpeg was considering asking STF about a sponsorship,
although we weren't informed of whatever happened until STF asked for a
meeting with us on January 15th. (Some of the SPI Board members even
presumed FFmpeg had given up and forgotten altogether).

> I can only agree with Anton that this looks like an attempt to strongarm
the community.

SPI is not trying to strongarm you into anything. Unless you try to do
something illegal and we're required by law to intervene, I guess, which
was discussed (e.g. "can the GA refuse to pay an invoice which is due?",
which I made clear SPI would pay the invoice despite the objection, because
the law requires it to be done).

SPI as a rule of thumb does not interfere in its projects' management and
decisions. If you want to give up on the sponsorship we'll honor the
decision, if you want the sponsorship in different terms we can discuss if
it's possible (and if it's not, SPI will not accept, because as I said
earlier SPI is bound by the law). And if you want for more time to discuss,
you should be asking that to STF, I can only help you as an agenda UNDER
THE PRETENSE that FFmpeg is actually interested in meeting with STF request.

If FFmpeg is not interested in attending STF's request of delivering them a
Scope of Work by February 12th, I'll stop posting agenda-like reminders or
suggestions.

Att.,

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

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 1:11 PM Rémi Denis-Courmont <remi at remlab.net> wrote:

>         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/
>
>
>
>