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

[Vittorio Giovara]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 4:40 PM Gyan Doshi <ffmpeg at gyani.pro> wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

As a matter of fact there is no asymmetry rule: if the author of the patch
is a member of TC and there is a disagreement, then they shall not vote.
Applies equally, to all members of the TC, of course it does not apply if a
TC member is involved in a technical discussion outside of the TC
discussion itself. It wouldn't make sense otherwise!


> >   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
>

While you may find my interpretation of the rule "aberrant" for the local
case, I find yours abhorrent for the health of the project itself. I
understand your frustration about this situation (and I am sure some people
are enjoying the show) but I am starting to suspect bad faith here, and I
invite you to reconsider your views on the matter.
-- 
Vittorio