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

[Anton Khirnov]

Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-03-22 14:05:05)
> Please do post the final text and options a day in advance.

I have now created the poll, but not started it yet (the text and
options can still be edited). It looks like this:

Description:

There is disagreement about the appropriateness and interpretation of
the following sentence in Technical Committee rules
(doc/community.texi):

    If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should
    recuse themselves from the decision.

(see thread starting from Message-Id
<170841737762.27417.14992162535824834057 at lain.khirnov.net> for more
details)

How should this sentence be changed? Rank the options below (labeled by
the developer who proposed them) in your order of preference.

Nicolas

Any member of the TC who had a strong opinion on the question raised
before it was raised should recuse themselves.

In particular, must recuse themselves any member of the TC who:

* participated in the discussion (on the ML, on IRC or elsewhere) in a
  specific direction (minor comments and questions being acceptable);
* has a personal interest in the outcome;
* is, was recently or soon will be employed by an entity having a
  personal interest in the outcome or has any kind of hierarchical
  relationship with such entity.

Failure to do so would result, upon discovery, into the exclusion of all
FFmpeg governance bodies, including the general assembly, for a duration
of no less than five years.

Additionally, any member of the general assembly can recuse any member
of the TC without having to provide a reason.

If the application of these rules result in all members of the TC
recused or if the remaining members do not feel comfortable being too
few, that means the project is in a crisis of trust that needs to be
resolved by the general assembly.

Gyan

Any member of the TC who has

* had a major participation in the discussion or demonstrated a partisan
  disposition on the concerned issue at any public venue, or
* a material interest in the resolution of the dispute, either directly
  or via current or anticipated employment or consideration

should be recused from participation in the TC activities related to the
concerned matter. This recusal may be effected either directly by the TC
member, or failing which, by a vote of the Community Committee (CC) -
the TC member must not participate in any such vote. Failure by the TC
member to reveal any such involvement as described above, if judged
intentional and material by the CC, shall result in exclusion of said
member from all FFmpeg governance bodies for a period of no less than
two years.

Anton

Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
view, best for the project.

If a TC member feels they are affected by a conflict of interest with
regards to the case, they should announce it and recuse themselves from
the TC discussion and vote.

A conflict of interest is presumed to occur when a TC member has a
personal interest (e.g. financial) in a specific outcome of the case.

Michael 1

Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
view, best for the project.

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.

A conflict of interest is presumed to occur when a TC member has a
personal interest (e.g. financial) in a specific outcome of the case
that differs from what is best for the project.

If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member must recuse
themselves from the decision.

Michael 2

Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
view, best for the project.

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.

A conflict of interest is presumed to occur when a TC member has a
personal interest (e.g. financial) in a specific outcome of the case
that differs from what is best for the project.

Notes

The difference between Michael 1 and Michael 2 is only that 1 has an
extra sentence at the end (the original disputed sentence with
should→must).

The difference between Michael 2 and Anton is in the second sentence
("is aware" vs. "feels") and third sentence (Michael 2 has "that differs
from what is best for the project.") at the end.

Candidates:

The top choice will win.

* Nicolas
* Gyan
* Anton
* Michael 1
* Michael 2
* left as is
* removed without replacement

-- 
Anton Khirnov