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

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 3:50 AM Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc>
wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 10:45:02AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:57 AM Michael Niedermayer <
> michael at niedermayer.cc>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 03:49:33AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > +If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to
> the
> > > case, they must announce it
> > > > +and recuse themselves from the TC discussion and vote.
> > >
> > > please replace this in my proposal by this (as it clearer states what
> the
> > > intend is)
> > >
> > > > * If a TC member is aware of being in a conflict of interest with
> > > regards to the case, they must announce it
> > > > and recuse themselves from the TC discussion and vote.
> > >
> > > (also as you can see we have active discussions here, the vote is IMHO
> > >  premature)
> > >
> >
> > we literally had premature voting for STF, despite multiple discussions
> > taking place during the time
>
> The STF opertunity had a deadline.
>

a deadline that you were aware of for months, and dumped on the community
saying "we only have 2 weeks to decide" and *while we were discussing the
options* you single handedly started a vote


> Also we can already start discussing what shall be done when the next grant
> opertunity comes. I dont know if we will be accepted, so its possible
> 1. that if we are rejected that we will hear of that narrowly before the
> next deadline.
> 2. there is always the chance for more opertunities, we should be ready
> to know what we want next time
>

We are NOT discussing this topic in this thread, please stop trying to
derail the conversation


> > I don't see how a parallel thread here should stop the proposed vote now
> > please let's stop filibustering and just move on to voting
>
> voting on what ?
>

On the list of options that Anton is preparing


> Iam not blocking the vote btw, i suggested several options for it.
> What i think is that a real discussion would make sense before the vote
> if no such discussion happens and the vote moves forward with all options
> then that will work out too i guess.
>

Including expanding the GA, sending separate patches, and now mentioning
funding in this very response
I love the chaos as much as anybody but we need to be practical at a
certain point.

Either add an option to the proposed list of options or let's move to
voting.
-- 
Vittorio