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

[Anton Khirnov]

Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-03 03:49:33)
> Hi
> 
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 06:33:12PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > it seems the discussion died down,
> 
> There are patches pending, which i will apply soon if no objections
> have been raised.

I object to these patches. This way of hijacking discussion is just
rude.

> And noone owns law texts.

These patches are not law texts, they are documentation. Authorship and
copyright apply to them, same as to code.

> Everyone can propose any derivation
> of anothers suggestion. Thats the idea behind evolution and improvment
> and the idea behind finding and dicussing variations.

But the problem is not about ownership, but rather about telling people
"stop discussing here and instead go to some other thread and comment on
those other patches".

There seems to be a wide consensus that we have a fundamental
disagreement here and the best way to resolve it is through a vote. It
also seems to me that you keep trying to derail the vote, for unclear
reasons.

> Please add the vote options: (I belive this gives the people a more
> complete set of choices)

Why do you feel you need to bestow all these options upon "the people"?
If "the people" wanted these options, they would have asked for them.
Again, it seems like you are trying to derail the vote.

-- 
Anton Khirnov