[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] clarifying the TC conflict of interest rule

[Michael Niedermayer]

On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:57:43PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-03 03:49:33)
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 06:33:12PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > it seems the discussion died down,
> > 
> > There are patches pending, which i will apply soon if no objections
> > have been raised.
> 
> I object to these patches. This way of hijacking discussion is just
> rude.
> 
> > And noone owns law texts.
> 
> These patches are not law texts, they are documentation. Authorship and
> copyright apply to them, same as to code.
> 
> > Everyone can propose any derivation
> > of anothers suggestion. Thats the idea behind evolution and improvment
> > and the idea behind finding and dicussing variations.
> 
> But the problem is not about ownership, but rather about telling people
> "stop discussing here and instead go to some other thread and comment on
> those other patches".
> 
> There seems to be a wide consensus that we have a fundamental
> disagreement here and the best way to resolve it is through a vote. It
> also seems to me that you keep trying to derail the vote, for unclear
> reasons.

The vote started as you want TC members (like yourself) to be able to
vote on their own disagreements.
I think thats not a good idea, thats where we dissagree.

But instead of asking this in a vote (which you could have done)
you pair it with the addition of good changes
and then when i want to add these changes you call it "hijacking discussion", "rude."
and "copyright apply to them"
and litterally object to your own change. So it can stay paired in the vote
with the change you want.

Again the changes you want to add / that are in the patches i did send
should be discussed and applied through consensus, iam sure there is wide
consensus to add them in some form.

OTOH I do not know how many people want TC members to be able to vote on
their own disagreements. Some people do want this yes, some people do not
want this.


>
> > Please add the vote options: (I belive this gives the people a more
> > complete set of choices)
>
> Why do you feel you need to bestow all these options upon "the people"?

The point of a vote is to find out what the people want.
The word democracy means
government by the people. especially : rule of the majority. : a government
in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them

For this they need to have the choice.

Normally we discuss disagreements, try to find consensus and move that way
but here you disregard this and try to push forward with a vote while
blocking your exact own text in one of the 3 patches that your vote
would add.

I hope very much that people even if they agree with the change vote
against it because what you do here is not how democracy should work.
And i dont think the future will be pretty if this style is accepted.
Expect everyone to do this with many changes YOU do not want in.

items should not be paired to get disputed things through. The Community
should be able to decide on the items independantly of each other


> If "the people" wanted these options, they would have asked for them.
> Again, it seems like you are trying to derail the vote.

If you pair things in a vote that others disagree you will have to
accept that some unpaired choices will appear too

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

When you are offended at any man's fault, turn to yourself and study your
own failings. Then you will forget your anger. -- Epictetus
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20240304/11edcb76/attachment.sig>