On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:40 PM Gyan Doshi <ffm...@gyani.pro> wrote:
> > > On 2024-02-19 08:00 pm, Vittorio Giovara wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 6:11 AM Gyan Doshi<ffm...@gyani.pro> wrote: > > > >> The TC is invoked when there's an intractable dispute. So the dispute > >> precedes the TC activity hence the parties to the dispute are the main > >> opposing participants at the venue of the dispute wherever that is, and > >> the rules applies to all main parties. Imagine there's a new feature to > >> be added which doesn't exist in the codebase in any form so there's no > >> status quo. Member A submits a patch using design pattern X. Member B > >> objects and wants design pattern Y. Now let's say if only A was on the > >> TC, then as per the arguments of some here, A should recuse themselves > >> but if only B was on the TC, B gets to vote. That asymmetry is not > >> supported in the wording nor would it be fair. > >> > > The asymmetry is that the TC should be protecting the good of the project > > and the community interests, while the member of the community proposing > > the patch is protecting their own interest. > > Both the proposer and disputer of a patch may have a vested interest in > steering decisions one way or the > other, or both may believe they're furthering the good of the project. > There is no asymmetry inherent in the > roles of the participants. There shouldn't be in the rules either. > As a matter of fact there is no asymmetry rule: if the author of the patch is a member of TC and there is a disagreement, then they shall not vote. Applies equally, to all members of the TC, of course it does not apply if a TC member is involved in a technical discussion outside of the TC discussion itself. It wouldn't make sense otherwise! > > The rule you keep bringing forth is stated to avoid a conflict of > > interest where the member of the TC is also the author of the patch, but > > was never meant to exclude one party from voting in the TC. > We've already had the proposer of the rule participate in this thread > and I cited discussion from the time of drafting of the rule that it is > meant to apply to both sides. Treating the rule as applying to only the > author is the aberrant interpretation. Regards, Gyan > While you may find my interpretation of the rule "aberrant" for the local case, I find yours abhorrent for the health of the project itself. I understand your frustration about this situation (and I am sure some people are enjoying the show) but I am starting to suspect bad faith here, and I invite you to reconsider your views on the matter. -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ 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".
