Forgot to mention, but you also don't need to set the values yourself. You can simply post "we're looking to have X task done, interested parties please send us a quote" and see if it fits the budget.
-- Jonatas L. Nogueira (“jesusalva”) Board of Directors Member Software in the Public Interest, Inc. On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 1:00 PM Jonatas L. Nogueira <jesusa...@spi-inc.org> wrote: > > The FFmpeg community was told about this three days ago. > > Fair enough if it's true (I'm an outsider, after all) > > > There are arguments in this very thread how we cannot discuss things in > > detail and must instead ACT NOW OR ALL THE MONEY IS GONE. Naturally this > > makes the mood more tense, especially given the other circumstances. > > What I noticed (as an external observator), was putting the cart ahead of > the horse. There's no money right now, but STF is willing to grant around > 200k if FFmpeg is able to submit a Scope of Work in time for their meeting > (happening on Feb 14th, materials however should be submitted 48 hours > before). The scope of work is, in other words, a letter of intentions of > what to do with such money. They have already informed about the > restrictions (e.g. should be maintenance or security related, that it is > too early to ask for feature projects but it might be possible in the > future, etc). > > A Scope of Work is a bit more than a wishlist because it assumes the work > is actually going to be done, so it cannot be too overambitious. That's > what needs to "act now or all the money is gone". The question currently > presented is, "if FFmpeg had 200k euros to work with maintenance, what > would FFmpeg do?" ─ this will become the Scope of Work (we can have people > to word it into legalese later, if needed). > > Of course, all that will end in a Statement of Work (SOW) later, > describing how the wishlist in the Scope of Work will be attained as > everyone knows that money doesn't magically solve problems. And from what > I've seen as an external observer, there is a lot of discussion pending for > this. But that's alright, there's probably over a month for that. Of > course, without a Scope of Work, there'll be no SOW, and any discussion > made on this will become a waste of time. > > If I were the one doing it... I would first make a wishlist in a shared > document with all tasks eligible (3~5 days, so completion until Feb 5th > latest). There are time constraints, though, and FFmpeg takes decisions > collectively, so... I would make a vote between Feb 5th and Feb 12th (yes, > the deadline) to elect the tasks which will be on the Scope of Work. I > would improvise a bit: ask the submitted tasks to also have a proponent > (who is asking for the task to be done) and a budget (how much money the > proponent thinks that will be enough to attain it). The budget here is > nonsense, it is just to have a metric to decide how many options will go to > the Scope of Work. The proponent is to answer questions the voters may have. > > With that laid out and once in motion, the remainder of discussion would > be held. How much to pay the contributors, the actual budget for the > approved projects, how it'll be tracked, what's more fair for deliverables, > how they'll be checked, if you'll contract the developers directly or with > an intermediary, etc. There's no point discussing any of that unless you're > sure the scope of work can be delivered in time. Multiple Statements of > Work are also possible, so there's no actual need for one-size-fits-all in > those questions. If project A, B and C can be divided into commits but > project D cannot, it's fine to have different rules for project D. Also why > it doesn't make much sense to hold these discussions now, when you can't > even answer what would be the projects. > > That, however, is not my call. I can provide suggestions, but actually > coming with a Scope of Work in time is yours and yours alone. > > > So far it does not seem we have an abundance of volunteers, so it seems > > more likely we'll struggle to spend all the money. > > Coincidentally, that happens a lot. No reason to let it hinder you, > though, having money gives the option to make job postings, and you might > even be able to ask for help in spi-general list. > > > only a minority of time is spent typing code. > > Don't I know it... I'm also a programmer for The Mana World, pretty > familiar with "I changed a couple lines and now nothing works, spend two > hours trying to figure out that I forgot a curly brace". > > That is among the discussions I believe FFmpeg should have, although you > might want to have the Scope of Work rolling before starting this. (And > there are many possible solutions, so I expect quite some time to be spent > finding all of them and picking out the best one). > > If you start discussing how to properly pay for the hours spent hunting > simple typo mistakes now, you'll never be able to tell STF what actually > needs to be done in time. > > -- > Jonatas L. Nogueira (“jesusalva”) > Board of Directors Member > Software in the Public Interest, Inc. > > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:17 PM Kieran Kunhya <kier...@obe.tv> wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 14:10, Jonatas L. Nogueira via ffmpeg-devel < >> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote: >> >>> > 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. >>> >> >> The FFmpeg community was told about this three days ago. >> >> Kieran >> > _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".