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

[Gyan Doshi]

On 2024-02-19 08:00 pm, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 6:11 AM Gyan Doshi<ffmpeg at 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.

>   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