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

[Anton Khirnov]

Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-05 03:36:14)
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 10:15:31PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-04 00:36:21)
> > > [words words]
> > 
> > Again - why do you personally need so many choices? Just one should be
> > enough. If someone else wants some other choice on the ballot, they
> > should ask for it.
> 
> Many people do not speak up,

And they need you to read their minds and speak for them? I see no
evidence for this.

> Also there has not been a real discussion from which i can see what the
> community prefers.

That's what the vote is supposed to do. The discussion shows there are
fundamental disagreements that cannot be resolved otherwise.

> I asked you to comment on the patches i posted but you dont want to.

I did comment. My comment is that your approach amounts to derailing and
hijacking this discussion, and I wish you did not do that because it is
rude and adds unnecessary chaos and confusion.

> the closest to a discussion where remis replies to my patches
> and of course the other proposals for vote options.

That IS the discussion. If its content is not to your liking then it's a
problem with you, not the discussion.

> if 10 people would reply and state their preferrance and i mean
> 10 random people not everyone from "one side" of the main disagreement

Who is "one side"? This thread has 10+ authors who expressed their
opinions and concerns, and some proposed their preferred alternatives
for the vote. Note how nobody except you has a problem with going
forward with the vote.

> then i would have a better feeling what people prefer

That's what the vote is supposed to accomplish.

> and assuming that points to one or 2 clear directions then i could
> suggest options that are targetet to these oppinions.

So you're implying there are these poor oppressed masses who are unable
to speak their opinion and need you to read their minds and be their
champion? You are insulting our community you know, they are not
helpless toddlers.

> But people like boykoting my suggestion for trying to move this
> forward first by discussion and consensus. That may fail but its
> failure will give us knowledge what needs to be in the vote
> 
> So yes, these options are for the people not for me.

I've read about many instances of someone claiming to speak for "the
people", "the oppressed", "the proletariat", etc. Somehow they never
actually do.

> Also, extra options do no harm in a condorcet vote, it gives noone
> an advanatge. It might just result in a outcome that represents the
> will of more people

Extra options mean extra burden on the voters. Our turnouts are already
not great, adding filler options that nobody actually wants can reduce
it further.

-- 
Anton Khirnov