Quoting Marton Balint (2024-02-20 20:32:19) > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Anton Khirnov wrote: > > > Quoting Marton Balint (2024-02-20 10:12:34) > >> We have no means to prove financial interest, because it is not public. > > > > We also have no means to prove that committee members are acting in the > > project's interest. > > > > E.g. if I had no qualms about being dishonest, I could always ask a > > friend to object to controversial patches in my place, so I wouldn't > > lose my vote, and nobody could prove it. > > > > In the end some things have to be taken on trust. > > My concern is bad mouthing others based on assumed financial interest and > endless discussion if that interest is "serious" or not. If your payjob > uses ffmpeg, or if you ever want money for some ffmpeg related work, that > is a financial interest right there. > > If somebody feels that voting would not be fair, he can always abstain. > I'd rather keep that fully trust based, to avoid rule interpretation > wars and discussions about assumed interests. > > An interest is not inherently bad, selfish contributions (financial > reasons or not) is a huge factor in open source.
I'm deliberately phrasing it as financial interest *in a specific outcome*, not just being paid to work on the project in general. Also, in my updated proposal the conflict of interest is self-assessed by the TC member in question, which I think should address these concerns. > > > >> For practical reasons, using patch authorship is better. Or maybe a more > >> general solution against bias is somewhat increasing the number of people > >> in the TC, and removing this rule alltogether. > > > > I woould be concerned about making the TC too slow and unwieldy, it > > already takes a lot of effort to push any decisions through. Keep in > > mind that during all of its existence it only ever made two decisions, > > and one of them spent over a year in limbo. > > So with 7 people, it would have been two years? :) > > Have the TC meet weekly if there is an agenda, and have votes after > meeting. With more people it is not that big of a deal if somebody > cannot attend. And have a rule in place to resolve ties. It can be as > simple as to accept the proposal of the party who raised the issue to the > TC. Honestly, implementing this sounds like a significantly bigger project than I want (or have the resources) to do at this point. -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ 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".
