[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH 1/2] avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding

[Nicolas George]

Rémi Denis-Courmont (12024-02-18):
> This is an utterly absurd interpretation. By that logic, a TC member would 
> automatically become party to the disagreement by expressing an opinion within 
> even the TC itself.

This is the most hypocritical argument put forward in this discussion
yet.

>		      In fact, if you would read it maximally that way, any who 
> has an opinion, even if they have not expressed it, would be a party.
> 
> So what then, the FFmpeg thought police?

And you break your own record in the very next sentence.

> You can argue that the rule is vague, and it is. But if anything, we can at 
> least eliminate absurd interpretations.

The rule is not vague at all.

>					   (And in any case, it says "should", 
> not "must".)

Indeed. I wondered when somebody dishonest would try to exploit that
loophole.

The obvious answer is: if somebody in the TC does not do what the rules
say they SHOULD, then the general assembly SHOULD vote them out at the
next election. Or earlier, because a vote of no confidence can be
brought at any time.

-- 
  Nicolas George