[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/developer: require transparency about sponshorships.

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 07:21:07PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
> Rationale:
> 
> * This requirement should offset a little the incentive to neglect
>   design, code quality and politeness during the review process when
>   done for money.
> 
> * The review process itself and future maintenance burden cost efforts
>   to the whole project; knowing that sponsorship has been given, to an
>   individual or to the whole project, helps evaluating if the benefits
>   match the costs.
> 
> * Inclusion in FFmpeg implies implicit endorsement by the project;
>   we owe to our users to disclose when this endorsement is not genuine;
>   this is to relate to mandatory flagging of advertisement in mass media.
> 
> * Systematic disclosure and transparency make a stronger position
>   against accusations of bias or conflict of interest for difficult
>   policy decisions.
> 
> * Documenting bounties may give an incentive to new contributors
>   who may not be aware of these opportunities.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas George <george at nsup.org>
> ---
>  doc/developer.texi | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi
> index 5c342c9106..1d77250083 100644
> --- a/doc/developer.texi
> +++ b/doc/developer.texi
> @@ -420,6 +420,13 @@ your name after it.
>  If at some point you no longer want to maintain some code, then please help in
>  finding a new maintainer and also don't forget to update the @file{MAINTAINERS} file.
>  
> + at subheading Disclose sponsors and other remunerations
> +If the patch is the result of sponsored work, expects a bounty or benefited
> +from any kind of specific remuneration or payment, include the identity of
> +the sponsors, the identity of the recipients (if it is not exactly the
> +author of the patch) and the amount (or an approximation if it is not
> +possible to define it exactly) in the commit message.
> +
>  We think our rules are not too hard. If you have comments, contact us.
>  
>  @chapter Code of conduct
> @@ -664,6 +671,9 @@ are notoriously left unchecked, which is a serious problem.
>  @item
>  Test your code with valgrind and or Address Sanitizer to ensure it's free
>  of leaks, out of array accesses, etc.
> +
> + at item
> +Did you disclose any sponsorship in the commit message?
>  @end enumerate
>  
>  @chapter Patch review process

You should add yourself to
https://ffmpeg.org/consulting.html

I have no doubt code you would write for money would be of high quality.
And more paid developers equal more contributions which is a good thing.

Also iam not sure how this change would interact with the GDPR or a NDA
iam no lawyer .... 

Thanks

[...]

-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

It is what and why we do it that matters, not just one of them.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20190113/eb3e6335/attachment.sig>