Hi all,
We are offered to apply for a sponsorship of FFmpeg by the Sovereign Tech Fund
(STF).
Please read the following to get a better understanding what STF is about:
(In short it is about maintenance and sustainability, not features)
https://www.sovereigntechfund.de/programs/applications
This is the courtesy reminder we've agreed on, to remember there's a week
left to finish the Scope of Work if FFmpeg wishes to deliver it by February
12th as requested by STF.
Att.,
Jonatas L. Nogueira (“Jesusalva”)
SPI Board of Directors
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024, 21:16 Stefano Sabatini wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2024, at 18:21, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 09:55:00PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 21:45, Derek Buitenhuis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/30/2024 1:48 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Either way, iam interrested in helping with coverity work while
> at the same time this environment where peole finger point and say
> "is way too much" is something i dont feel comfortable to work in.
>
So you make an RFC but you only want comments that agree with you?
> maybe doing it per
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 09:55:00PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 21:45, Derek Buitenhuis
> wrote:
>
> > On 1/30/2024 1:48 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/SponsoringPrograms/STF/2024
> >
> > Not to derail this fine thread, but what forks
Hi,
Le 4 février 2024 21:28:44 GMT+02:00, Michael Niedermayer
a écrit :
>On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 03:38:43PM +0100, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Le 4 février 2024 14:41:15 GMT+01:00, Michael Niedermayer
>> a écrit :
>> >Hi
>> >
>> >As said on IRC, i thought people knew it, but ‘the
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 03:38:43PM +0100, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Le 4 février 2024 14:41:15 GMT+01:00, Michael Niedermayer
> a écrit :
> >Hi
> >
> >As said on IRC, i thought people knew it, but ‘the same person as before’ is
> >Thilo.
> >
> >Ive updated the price design
Hi,
Le 4 février 2024 14:41:15 GMT+01:00, Michael Niedermayer
a écrit :
>Hi
>
>As said on IRC, i thought people knew it, but ‘the same person as before’ is
>Thilo.
>
>Ive updated the price design suggestion for the merge task, its 16€ / commit
>limited to 50k€
>this comes from looking at
Hi
On Sun, Feb 04, 2024 at 11:02:30AM +0100, J. Dekker wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024, at 10:49, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't believe it is appropriate to hold the vote before Derek's
> > question is addressed.
> >
> > We don't really know what we're voting on here.
> >
On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 11:03 AM J. Dekker wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2024, at 10:49, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I don't believe it is appropriate to hold the vote before Derek's
> > question is addressed.
> >
> > We don't really know what we're voting on here.
> >
> > Le 1
On Sun, Feb 4, 2024, at 10:49, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't believe it is appropriate to hold the vote before Derek's
> question is addressed.
>
> We don't really know what we're voting on here.
>
> Le 1 février 2024 20:22:14 GMT+01:00, Derek Buitenhuis
> a écrit :
>>On
Hi,
I don't believe it is appropriate to hold the vote before Derek's question is
addressed.
We don't really know what we're voting on here.
Le 1 février 2024 20:22:14 GMT+01:00, Derek Buitenhuis
a écrit :
>On 1/31/2024 9:44 PM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
>> On 1/30/2024 1:48 AM, Michael
I have no relation and none of the above.
There were some large items of piping that needed carrying and I did that
to help my fellow human being through love of humankind.
Kieran
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 14:52, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:45:50PM +, Kieran Kunhya
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 10:45:50PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, 22:40 Michael Niedermayer,
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 09:54:05PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 21:43, Michael Niedermayer <
> > mich...@niedermayer.cc>
> > > wrote:
> > >
On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 06:59:14PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-01 00:07:02)
> >
> > about antons comment
> > "Objections: (Anton) Coverity (and other static analysis tools) are
> > notoriously prone to false positives. I am concerned that this might lead
>
On 1/31/2024 9:44 PM, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 1:48 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/SponsoringPrograms/STF/2024
>
> Not to derail this fine thread, but what forks does the Merge Forks
> project refer to?
I do not believe this has been answered.
-
Le torstaina 1. helmikuuta 2024, 19.59.14 EET Anton Khirnov a écrit :
> > Why should i suddenly do something different ?
> > I did it for 100% free back then
> > and here it wouldnt even make sense, closing false positives also
> > counts as resolved. Its less work even to get 70USD ;)
>
> What's
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-01 00:07:02)
>
> about antons comment
> "Objections: (Anton) Coverity (and other static analysis tools) are
> notoriously prone to false positives. I am concerned that this might lead to
> a large number of patches that "fix" such false positives, but make
On date Thursday 2024-02-01 00:15:03 +0100, Stefano Sabatini wrote:
> José already provided and excellent summary from his side. On my side
I meant Jonatas, sorry.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
On date Wednesday 2024-01-31 18:10:57 +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Hi,
[...]
> Sarcasm aside, I take that to mean that SPI has been involved with those
> discussions for months in a private and closed process. Michael asserted that
> an open inclusive process is better than the
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 09:55:00PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 21:45, Derek Buitenhuis
> wrote:
>
> > On 1/30/2024 1:48 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/SponsoringPrograms/STF/2024
> >
> > Not to derail this fine thread, but what forks
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024, 22:40 Michael Niedermayer,
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 09:54:05PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 21:43, Michael Niedermayer <
> mich...@niedermayer.cc>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:19:04PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 09:54:05PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 21:43, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:19:04PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 19:17, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel <
> > > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org>
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 21:45, Derek Buitenhuis
wrote:
> On 1/30/2024 1:48 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/SponsoringPrograms/STF/2024
>
> Not to derail this fine thread, but what forks does the Merge Forks
> project refer to?
>
> - Derek
>
I also added a note
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 21:43, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:19:04PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 19:17, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel <
> > ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > > This is most likely referring to the email from Thilo
On 1/30/2024 1:48 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/SponsoringPrograms/STF/2024
Not to derail this fine thread, but what forks does the Merge Forks
project refer to?
- Derek
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 08:19:04PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 19:17, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel <
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
[...]
> > This is most likely referring to the email from Thilo that an anonymous
> > corporate sponsor is providing ffmpeg with a
On date Wednesday 2024-01-31 13:30:50 +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Stefano Sabatini (2024-01-30 00:53:25)
> > On date Monday 2024-01-29 22:11:49 +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
[...]
> > > 1) How does the project protect itself from pre-approving some code that
> > >does not exist yet?
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 19:17, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel <
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Michael Niedermayer <
> mich...@niedermayer.cc> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 06:22:41PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> >> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 18:03,
I can't find anything in SPI related to NAB either. I can ask the officers
if they're aware of something from NAB, but I don't think that would be the
case.
I can find some old booths for FOSSEM, FOSDEM and whatnot though. Can you
double check?
(Also: What's the relation between NAB and this
> On Jan 31, 2024, at 11:07 AM, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 06:22:41PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 18:03, Michael Niedermayer
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Jonatas, Remi
>>>
>>> _THIS_ reply shows why i LOVE SPI
>>>
>>> I mean this is
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 06:22:41PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 18:03, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jonatas, Remi
> >
> > _THIS_ reply shows why i LOVE SPI
> >
> > I mean this is transparency, anyone try to get something similar from a
> > corporation
> >
> >
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 18:40, Jonatas L. Nogueira
wrote:
> I assume you don't mean National Association of Broadcasters by "NAB", so
> I would need to know what booth you're talking about.
>
That is what I mean.
Kieran
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 3:22 PM Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On
There are no agreements between SPI and STF as of 31st January 2024.
However, if you submit a Scope of Work, then an agreement will be made if
STF approves the sponsorship (on the Feb 14th or later).
I assume you don't mean National Association of Broadcasters by "NAB", so I
would need to know
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 18:03, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> Hi Jonatas, Remi
>
> _THIS_ reply shows why i LOVE SPI
>
> I mean this is transparency, anyone try to get something similar from a
> corporation
>
> Just in the last 48h i have seen a reminder from a CEO about "shareholder
> agreement"
>
Hi Jonatas, Remi
_THIS_ reply shows why i LOVE SPI
I mean this is transparency, anyone try to get something similar from a
corporation
Just in the last 48h i have seen a reminder from a CEO about "shareholder
agreement"
and privacy
thx
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 05:04:20PM +, Jonatas L.
Hi Rémi
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 06:10:57PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
[...]
> This is further aggravated by the context that Michael brought forward the
> idea of funding developers through SPI 3 months ago (in actual Earth units).
> From your statement, I have to infer that Thilo,
> I take that to mean that SPI has been involved with those discussions for
months in a private and closed process
Not really, however STF did ask for a meeting with SPI concerning the
possibility to sponsor FFmpeg on January 18th (so roughly two weeks ago).
To make clear, the request was on the
Hi,
Le keskiviikkona 31. tammikuuta 2024, 16.10.02 EET Jonatas L. Nogueira via
ffmpeg-devel a écrit :
> > 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
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,
> 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,
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
Quoting Jonatas L. Nogueira via ffmpeg-devel (2024-01-31 15:10:02)
> > 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
>
> 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 question is, what
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-01-30 01:15:54)
> > Self-imposed restrictions like these at the very least need a GA vote
> > IMO.
>
> I dont think its a "Self-imposed restriction"
> The right to arbitrarily reject a invoice to a SoW never existed in the
> first place.
> But lets try this
Quoting Stefano Sabatini (2024-01-30 00:53:25)
> On date Monday 2024-01-29 22:11:49 +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-01-28 04:25:49)
> > > There can be no late objections here to any project suggestions.
> > > Objections must be before a project suggestion is
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-01-29 22:27:07)
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:36:27PM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 9:19 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >
> > > Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2024-01-29 21:09:42)
> > > > This is not something that should be discussed
Hi Vittorio
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 10:32:42AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 2:48 AM Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all
> >
> > after people said they would help and start a wiki page (no not thilo dont
> > blame him)
> > I again wrote one myself. This is
Hi Rémi
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 08:30:56AM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>
>
> Le 30 janvier 2024 00:43:39 GMT+02:00, Michael Niedermayer
> a écrit :
> >Hi
> >
> >On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:01:05PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> Le maanantaina 29. tammikuuta 2024, 20.11.19 EET
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 08:30:56AM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>
>
> Le 30 janvier 2024 00:43:39 GMT+02:00, Michael Niedermayer
> a écrit :
> >Hi
> >
> >On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:01:05PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> >> Le maanantaina 29. tammikuuta 2024, 20.11.19 EET Michael
Quoting Nicolas George (2024-01-30 11:12:13)
> Kieran Kunhya (12024-01-29):
> > A commercial SOW with a private company that took the commercial risk on
> > that contract taking longer or being more difficult than anticipated or
> > someone else doing the work without telling them.
> >
> > The
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:15 AM Nicolas George wrote:
> Vittorio Giovara (12024-01-30):
> > Sorry, but this feels a lot like “I have nothing to add to the
> > conversation, but I feel like I need to speak up anyway”.
>
> Well...
>
> > It's not a veto when multiple eminent contributors outlined
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 10:46, Nicolas George wrote:
> Kieran Kunhya (12024-01-30):
> > So you agree the proposed Statement of Work idea in this thread isn't
> going
> > to fly as it won't cover actual code review?
>
> If that is what you read in what I wrote, I suggest you take reading
> lessons
Kieran Kunhya (12024-01-30):
> So you agree the proposed Statement of Work idea in this thread isn't going
> to fly as it won't cover actual code review?
If that is what you read in what I wrote, I suggest you take reading
lessons intended for an early age.
--
Nicolas George
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 10:31, Nicolas George wrote:
> Kieran Kunhya (12024-01-30):
> > The patches were on the mailing list for months, there was a presentation
> > at VDD (livestreamed too).
>
> “But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning
> office for the last nine
Kieran Kunhya (12024-01-30):
> The patches were on the mailing list for months, there was a presentation
> at VDD (livestreamed too).
“But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning
office for the last nine month.” — Douglas Adams
--
Nicolas George
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 10:12, Nicolas George wrote:
> Kieran Kunhya (12024-01-29):
> > A commercial SOW with a private company that took the commercial risk on
> > that contract taking longer or being more difficult than anticipated or
> > someone else doing the work without telling them.
> >
>
Vittorio Giovara (12024-01-30):
> Sorry, but this feels a lot like “I have nothing to add to the
> conversation, but I feel like I need to speak up anyway”.
Well...
> It's not a veto when multiple eminent contributors outlined the problems
> with the current proposals, and I don't think ignoring
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 11:07 AM Nicolas George wrote:
> Vittorio Giovara (12024-01-30):
> > Sorry but this feels a lot like "thanks for your feedback, I'm going to
> do
> > this anyway".
>
> Sorry, but this feels a lot like “I gave an objection, you have to treat
> it like a veto”.
>
Sorry,
Kieran Kunhya (12024-01-29):
> A commercial SOW with a private company that took the commercial risk on
> that contract taking longer or being more difficult than anticipated or
> someone else doing the work without telling them.
>
> The terms of that contract were discussed in private and don't
Vittorio Giovara (12024-01-30):
> Sorry but this feels a lot like "thanks for your feedback, I'm going to do
> this anyway".
Sorry, but this feels a lot like “I gave an objection, you have to treat
it like a veto”.
--
Nicolas George
___
ffmpeg-devel
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 2:48 AM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> Hi all
>
> after people said they would help and start a wiki page (no not thilo dont
> blame him)
> I again wrote one myself. This is really early WIP
> it contains the application we would send to STF, this is NOT written by me
> and
mån 2024-01-29 klockan 21:04 +0100 skrev Michael Niedermayer:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 07:02:57PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, 18:54 Michael Niedermayer,
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > You weren't willing to compromise last time
> > > > for your hobby, what makes you
Le 29 janvier 2024 22:15:39 GMT+02:00, Derek Buitenhuis
a écrit :
>Between this, the unaswered NAB questions, the second vote ridiculousness, the
>accidental email to the ML from Thilo where he admits he has purposely not
>replied,
>etc.,
Also
- Reject FFmpeg project's free invitation to
Le 30 janvier 2024 00:43:39 GMT+02:00, Michael Niedermayer
a écrit :
>Hi
>
>On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:01:05PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> Le maanantaina 29. tammikuuta 2024, 20.11.19 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit
>> :
>[...]
>> > Its under the control of the community and its
Hi all
after people said they would help and start a wiki page (no not thilo dont
blame him)
I again wrote one myself. This is really early WIP
it contains the application we would send to STF, this is NOT written by me
and a few random projects
the structure of the application at the end is i
Hi all
I just now realize you already CC-ed jonatan and he already awnsered
sorry for the noise
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 01:15:54AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> Hi Anton,
>
> CCing Jonatas as there are questions beyond my knowledge in here
> and also iam not sure if my awnsers are all
Hi Anton,
CCing Jonatas as there are questions beyond my knowledge in here
and also iam not sure if my awnsers are all correct
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:11:49PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-01-28 04:25:49)
> > There can be no late objections here to any
On date Monday 2024-01-29 22:11:49 +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-01-28 04:25:49)
> > There can be no late objections here to any project suggestions.
> > Objections must be before a project suggestion is submitted to STF,
> > objections after that cannot be
Anton: "whether anything requires the projects to be owned by
individuals"... I don't think so. At least, not from the SPI side, STF
might have objections which I cannot anticipate.
But from the SPI side, we probably could do a MSA/SOW with a company rather
than individuals just fine, although I
>
> I guess that conculdes the "most serious schism in the project since the
> fork"
> until the next most serious ?
>
If you think that was the sole consequence of your attempt to ram SDR into
ffmpeg then I have no words.
Kieran
>
___
ffmpeg-devel
Hi
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:01:05PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le maanantaina 29. tammikuuta 2024, 20.11.19 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
[...]
> > Its under the control of the community and its transparent
>
> You always have the control of the community at the time of review and
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, 22:23 Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel, <
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
>
> > On Jan 28, 2024, at 7:54 AM, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> >
> > So work like Anton's threading, YUVJ removal etc, that couldn't be funded
> > via bounties as they have no direct commercial value but
> On Jan 28, 2024, at 7:54 AM, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
>
> So work like Anton's threading, YUVJ removal etc, that couldn't be funded
> via bounties as they have no direct commercial value but require expertise
> in the codebase.
> Statements of Work and milestones (by definition) are for
Quoting Kieran Kunhya (2024-01-28 20:34:46)
> The threading changes took the best part of a year and are still ongoing.
Over two years actually. I started working on it in November 2021.
And I agree that estimating the amount of work needed is a HUGE problem,
in both directions.
--
Anton
Hi
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 09:36:27PM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 9:19 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
>
> > Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2024-01-29 21:09:42)
> > > This is not something that should be discussed on a public ML
> >
> > Where do you think it should be discussed
Quoting Diederick C. Niehorster (2024-01-29 21:41:29)
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 9:10 PM Vittorio Giovara
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 8:22 PM Michael Niedermayer
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > I have yet to see an actual project of "this magnitude" materialize as a
> > > proposal.
> > >
> >
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-01-28 04:25:49)
> There can be no late objections here to any project suggestions.
> Objections must be before a project suggestion is submitted to STF,
> objections after that cannot be considered!
Self-imposed restrictions like these at the very least need a GA
Le maanantaina 29. tammikuuta 2024, 20.11.19 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > The "drama" is about how and through whom the funding goes.
>
> ok, elaborate please
>
> All FFmpeg money has always been handled through SPI or associated entities
It was already a bit of a stretch to compare
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 9:10 PM Vittorio Giovara
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 8:22 PM Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > > I have yet to see an actual project of "this magnitude" materialize as a
> > proposal.
> >
> > you can suggest one ?
> >
>
> libavscale!
Not being a regular, this may
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 9:19 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2024-01-29 21:09:42)
> > This is not something that should be discussed on a public ML
>
> Where do you think it should be discussed then?
>
IMO anywhere with a more limited set of constituents, such as the GA or
On 1/29/2024 8:19 PM, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> I, for one, see a much bigger problem in the fact that it only starts
> being discussed on the ML this late, after so much underground dealings
> that bypassed the community entirely.
+1
- Derek
___
Quoting Vittorio Giovara (2024-01-29 21:09:42)
> This is not something that should be discussed on a public ML
Where do you think it should be discussed then?
I, for one, see a much bigger problem in the fact that it only starts
being discussed on the ML this late, after so much underground
On 1/29/2024 8:09 PM, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> This is not something that should be discussed on a public ML and the lack
> of visibility and clarity on how SPI/STM got involved this time around is
> at least disingenuous IMO.
I am more curious how Thilo managed to insert himself as the sole
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 8:22 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> > I have yet to see an actual project of "this magnitude" materialize as a
> proposal.
>
> you can suggest one ?
>
libavscale!
or there is nothing you want improved in FFmpeg ?
> Or only if SPI isnt involved or iam not sure what
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 07:02:57PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, 18:54 Michael Niedermayer,
> wrote:
>
> >
> > > You weren't willing to compromise last time
> > > for your hobby, what makes you willing to compromise in that situation?
> >
> > This insult is unacceptable.
> >
Hi Derek
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 06:37:44PM +, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> >> On 1/28/2024 3:25 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> >> As others have said, the whole model of using discrete projects here seems
> >> opposed to
> >> the actual intent of the STF - maintained and stable OSS long
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, 18:54 Michael Niedermayer,
wrote:
>
> > You weren't willing to compromise last time
> > for your hobby, what makes you willing to compromise in that situation?
>
> This insult is unacceptable.
> I just a few days ago stated that i intend to implement SDR within what the
>
Hi Kieran
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 06:31:30PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 21:47, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Kieran
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 08:42:00PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > > On Sun, 28 Jan 2024, 20:37 Kieran Kunhya, wrote:
> > >
> > > > Both
Please keep in mind we're a public charity using public money from
taxpayers, which means we need a criteria for payments and that said
payments must be issued objectively. The GA might be able to distribute
money with subjective criterias... But not this specific money which is
being discussed. I
>> On 1/28/2024 3:25 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
>> As others have said, the whole model of using discrete projects here seems
>> opposed to
>> the actual intent of the STF - maintained and stable OSS long term.
>
> The whole suggestion here is based on what STF and SPI said. There was a
>
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 at 21:47, Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> Hi Kieran
>
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 08:42:00PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> > On Sun, 28 Jan 2024, 20:37 Kieran Kunhya, wrote:
> >
> > > Both work fine really. For example iam not employed by FFlabs and the
> work
> > >> i did for
Hi Derek
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 02:38:42PM +, Derek Buitenhuis wrote:
> On 1/28/2024 3:25 AM, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > At this point, what we need is a list of Projects so we can submit an
> > application to STF
> > at or before 12th Feb. (at the 14th they have a meeting and will
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 07:43:17PM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le maanantaina 29. tammikuuta 2024, 19.27.14 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> > Also FFmpeg has been part of Google summer of code for many many years
> > and also in the past in outreachy. All these projects payed
Le maanantaina 29. tammikuuta 2024, 19.27.14 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit :
> Also FFmpeg has been part of Google summer of code for many many years
> and also in the past in outreachy. All these projects payed "students"
> for work they did.
> From a legal point of view, these are probably
>
> Mysteriously, there was a total absence of similar drama there.
> I wonder how it could have been possible to do that for over a decade
> with not one instance of drama or problems like here.
>
> We had students passing the mentors review, being paid but code was
> found not be clean enough
Hello Kieran
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 03:02:24PM +, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> >
> >
> > >> [...] the GA definitly cannot object to an invoice for a project that
> > the GA approved previously.
> > > "The General Assembly is sovereign and legitimate for all its decisions
> > regarding the FFmpeg
> This is also why there's no need to review the invoices, and no risk of a
> legitimate invoice being rejected: Because the deliverable will likely be
> the commit (unless the GA objects beforehand and asks SPI to use something
> else), so until it (the MR/PR) is accepted, there's no invoice to
Again, this sounds like a misunderstanding.
The SOW is subservient to the merge, not the other way around. In other
words, the SOW don't require you to merge, but when/if you do merge, then
the SOW will require the payment to the contractor, which SPI handles. So
the SOW makes clear that if
On 1/29/2024 3:02 PM, Kieran Kunhya wrote:
> In this project, acceptance of a patch is based on the technical contents
> of a patch, not a few vague paragraphs in a SoW. These decisions are made
> by the Technical Committee and the General Assembly.
>
> Tying the project contractually is
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
