On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 4:59 PM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 01:16:48PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the vote has now ended with 23 votes cast, results are available at
> > https://vote.ffmpeg.org/cgi-bin/civs/results.pl?id=E_a6be1eb156d0e589
> >
> > The
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 1:17 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the vote has now ended with 23 votes cast, results are available at
> https://vote.ffmpeg.org/cgi-bin/civs/results.pl?id=E_a6be1eb156d0e589
>
> The winning option is 'Anton', i.e. my proposal. Voting data as reported
> by CIVS is
On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 01:16:48PM +0200, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> the vote has now ended with 23 votes cast, results are available at
> https://vote.ffmpeg.org/cgi-bin/civs/results.pl?id=E_a6be1eb156d0e589
>
> The winning option is 'Anton', i.e. my proposal. Voting data as reported
>
Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-04-01 14:20:01)
> On 2024-04-01 04:46 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > the vote has now ended with 23 votes cast, results are available at
> > https://vote.ffmpeg.org/cgi-bin/civs/results.pl?id=E_a6be1eb156d0e589
> >
> > The winning option is 'Anton', i.e. my
On 2024-04-01 04:46 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Hi all,
the vote has now ended with 23 votes cast, results are available at
https://vote.ffmpeg.org/cgi-bin/civs/results.pl?id=E_a6be1eb156d0e589
The winning option is 'Anton', i.e. my proposal. Voting data as reported
by CIVS is attached to this
Hi all,
the vote has now ended with 23 votes cast, results are available at
https://vote.ffmpeg.org/cgi-bin/civs/results.pl?id=E_a6be1eb156d0e589
The winning option is 'Anton', i.e. my proposal. Voting data as reported
by CIVS is attached to this email for future reference.
Cheers,
--
Anton
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:39:31PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> [...] if you have not voted yet please do so ASAP.
+1
[...]
--
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
Into a blind darkness they enter who follow after the Ignorance,
they as if into a greater
This is a reminder that I'm planning to end the vote on Monday morning.
We have 17 votes so far, if you have not voted yet please do so ASAP.
--
Anton Khirnov
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 09:20:46AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> The vote has been started, with the voter list generated by
> general_assembly.pl:
> # GA for 2021-01-01T00:00:00/2024-01-01T00:00:00; 50 people;
> SHA256:e63c3589d48557b90767f581eb1372c6c883ab87395dade38c61d0db0771fabd;
>
The vote has been started, with the voter list generated by
general_assembly.pl:
# GA for 2021-01-01T00:00:00/2024-01-01T00:00:00; 50 people;
SHA256:e63c3589d48557b90767f581eb1372c6c883ab87395dade38c61d0db0771fabd;
HEAD:f872b1971401817356708b8863dff4ee6bd02600
If you are in the GA and have not
Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-03-25 13:10:28)
> What will be the evaluation method?
If you mean the Condorcet completion method, we've used Schulze in the
previous votes.
--
Anton Khirnov
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
On 2024-03-25 03:11 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-03-22 14:05:05)
Please do post the final text and options a day in advance.
I have now created the poll, but not started it yet (the text and
options can still be edited). It looks like this:
The description, my option
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-25 00:44:20)
> > We have all the options that actual
> > people have actually wanted.
>
> I certainly am an actual person and i do want my option that iam proposing.
>
>
> > So kindly stop this obstructionism.
>
> So kindly add the 2 options i asked for.
Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-03-22 14:05:05)
> Please do post the final text and options a day in advance.
I have now created the poll, but not started it yet (the text and
options can still be edited). It looks like this:
Description:
There is disagreement about the appropriateness and
Hi Anton
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 12:40:52PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-24 03:21:50)
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 01:52:55PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Michael,
> >
> > > following up on the previous discussion in this thread - if you,
> > >
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-24 03:21:50)
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 01:52:55PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Michael,
>
> > following up on the previous discussion in this thread - if you,
> > personally, would like to vote for a different option than those
> > suggested so far, please
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 01:52:55PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Michael,
> following up on the previous discussion in this thread - if you,
> personally, would like to vote for a different option than those
> suggested so far, please propose one.
The goal of the vote is to find the option which
On 2024-03-22 06:22 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Michael,
following up on the previous discussion in this thread - if you,
personally, would like to vote for a different option than those
suggested so far, please propose one.
I am not going to add a large number of options that nobody actually
Anton Khirnov (12024-03-22):
> I am not going to add a large number of options that nobody actually
> wants to vote for, as it imposes a burden on the voters who have to
> carefully read and compare all the options.
The one organizing the vote should not be one of the persons defending
an option.
Michael,
following up on the previous discussion in this thread - if you,
personally, would like to vote for a different option than those
suggested so far, please propose one.
I am not going to add a large number of options that nobody actually
wants to vote for, as it imposes a burden on the
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:01 PM Vittorio Giovara
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 12:25 AM Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel <
> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
>
> > > instead of backroom deals, for a
> > > change.
> >
> > iam sorry, but these accusations are not acceptable
> > The application
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 12:25 AM Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel <
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org> wrote:
> > instead of backroom deals, for a
> > change.
>
> iam sorry, but these accusations are not acceptable
> The application was and is on a public wiki
> the SoWs where collected by pierre and it
> On Mar 7, 2024, at 07:25, Michael Niedermayer via ffmpeg-devel
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:27:22AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-05 03:50:01)
>>> The STF opertunity had a deadline.
>>> Also we can already start discussing what shall be done
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 11:27:22AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-05 03:50:01)
> > The STF opertunity had a deadline.
> > Also we can already start discussing what shall be done when the next grant
> > opertunity comes.
>
> How about some actual transparency
Hi Vittorio
On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 01:44:52PM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 3:50 AM Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 10:45:02AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:57 AM Michael Niedermayer <
> >
Michael Niedermayer (12024-03-04):
> But if they are presented with a vote that tries to take away their choice
> to funnel them into some other option, they should not accept this.
A good point to note that the vote should obviously not be organized by
somebody who has proposed and defended one
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:56:02 +0100 Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 12:36:21AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:57:43PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-03 03:49:33)
> [...]
> > >
> > > > Please add the
On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 3:50 AM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 10:45:02AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:57 AM Michael Niedermayer <
> mich...@niedermayer.cc>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 03:49:33AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-05 03:50:01)
> The STF opertunity had a deadline.
> Also we can already start discussing what shall be done when the next grant
> opertunity comes.
How about some actual transparency instead of backroom deals, for a
change.
The application has apparently been
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-05 03:36:14)
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 10:15:31PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-04 00:36:21)
> > > [words words]
> >
> > Again - why do you personally need so many choices? Just one should be
> > enough. If someone else
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 10:45:02AM +0100, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:57 AM Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 03:49:33AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > +If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to the
>
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 10:15:31PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-04 00:36:21)
> > [words words]
>
> Again - why do you personally need so many choices? Just one should be
> enough. If someone else wants some other choice on the ballot, they
> should ask for
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-04 00:36:21)
> [words words]
Again - why do you personally need so many choices? Just one should be
enough. If someone else wants some other choice on the ballot, they
should ask for it.
--
Anton Khirnov
___
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:57 AM Michael Niedermayer
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 03:49:33AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> [...]
>
> > +If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to the
> case, they must announce it
> > +and recuse themselves from the TC discussion
On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 03:49:33AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
[...]
> +If a TC member is aware of a conflict of interest with regards to the case,
> they must announce it
> +and recuse themselves from the TC discussion and vote.
please replace this in my proposal by this (as it clearer
On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 12:36:21AM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:57:43PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-03-03 03:49:33)
[...]
> >
> > > Please add the vote options: (I belive this gives the people a more
> > > complete set of
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
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.
On 2024-03-03 07:04 am, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 11:07:40AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote:
On 2024-03-01 11:03 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
* Any member of the TC who had a strong opinion on the question raised
before it was raised should recuse themselves.
In
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.
And noone owns law texts. Everyone can propose any derivation
of anothers suggestion. Thats the
On Sat, Mar 02, 2024 at 11:07:40AM +0530, Gyan Doshi wrote:
>
>
> On 2024-03-01 11:03 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > * Any member of the TC who had a strong opinion on the question raised
> >before it was raised should recuse themselves.
> >
> >In particular, must recuse themselves any
> On Mar 2, 2024, at 11:01 AM, Ronald S. Bultje wrote:
>
> This recusal may be effected either directly by
>> the TC member, or by a vote of the Community Committee (CC)
>>
>
> The CC is for enforcement of behavioural guidelines (CoC), not for
> technical matters, so this strikes me as a
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 12:37 AM Gyan Doshi wrote:
> [..]
>
This recusal may be effected either directly by
>the TC member, or by a vote of the Community Committee (CC)
>
The CC is for enforcement of behavioural guidelines (CoC), not for
technical matters, so this strikes me as a bit
On 2024-03-01 11:03 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
* Any member of the TC who had a strong opinion on the question raised
before it was raised should recuse themselves.
In particular, must recuse themselves any member of the TC who:
- participated in the discussion (on the ML, on IRC or
Hi all,
it seems the discussion died down, so I intend to start the vote on
Monday (2024-03-04).
The vote description will be as follows:
There is disagreement about the appropriateness and interpretation of
the following sentence in Technical Committee rules
(doc/community.texi):
>
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-27 17:55:30)
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:20:30AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-26 23:47:20)
> > >
> > > Look at the 3 patches i just posted.
> > > I suspect we can move alot closer to what you suggest without a vote but
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:20:30AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-26 23:47:20)
> >
> > Look at the 3 patches i just posted.
> > I suspect we can move alot closer to what you suggest without a vote but
> > simply by consensus
>
> Your patches use a 'must'
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-26 23:47:20)
>
> Look at the 3 patches i just posted.
> I suspect we can move alot closer to what you suggest without a vote but
> simply by consensus
Your patches use a 'must' wording, while multiple people would prefer a
'should'.
But even more
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 05:52:56PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-24 00:27:08)
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:14:20PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > Quoting Niklas Haas (2024-02-20 21:50:33)
> > > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:50:33 +0100 Anton
Ronald S. Bultje (12024-02-23):
> I think you and Anton are trying to fix different issues.
Indeed. In fact, our proposals are exactly opposite.
Anton's proposal defangs the rule completely, emptying it from all
authority, allowing members of the TC to boss other developers around.
My proposal
Le maanantaina 26. helmikuuta 2024, 21.48.03 EET Ronald S. Bultje a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 2:17 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Ronald S. Bultje (2024-02-26 19:12:45)
> >
> > > That's essentially what I was suggesting: run a GA vote on your proposed
> > > amendment, and
Quoting Ronald S. Bultje (2024-02-26 20:48:03)
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 2:17 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
>
> > Quoting Ronald S. Bultje (2024-02-26 19:12:45)
> > > That's essentially what I was suggesting: run a GA vote on your proposed
> > > amendment, and then run a separate GA vote on
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 2:17 PM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Ronald S. Bultje (2024-02-26 19:12:45)
> > That's essentially what I was suggesting: run a GA vote on your proposed
> > amendment, and then run a separate GA vote on Nicolas' proposed
> amendment.
>
> They don't seem orthogonal
Quoting Ronald S. Bultje (2024-02-26 19:12:45)
> That's essentially what I was suggesting: run a GA vote on your proposed
> amendment, and then run a separate GA vote on Nicolas' proposed amendment.
They don't seem orthogonal to me though, they both replace the same
disputed line and seem pretty
Hi,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:34 AM Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Ronald S. Bultje (2024-02-23 20:36:11)
> > Hi Nicolas
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 2:56 AM Nicolas George wrote:
> >
> > > Anton Khirnov (12024-02-22):
> > > > In my updated proposal, based on comments by Niklas and Rémi,
Hi Michael,
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-24 00:27:08)
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:14:20PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Niklas Haas (2024-02-20 21:50:33)
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:50:33 +0100 Anton Khirnov
> > > wrote:
> > > > + Each TC member must vote on such decision
Quoting Ronald S. Bultje (2024-02-23 20:36:11)
> Hi Nicolas
>
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 2:56 AM Nicolas George wrote:
>
> > Anton Khirnov (12024-02-22):
> > > In my updated proposal, based on comments by Niklas and Rémi, I'm
> > > leaving it up to the TC member in question, based on the
Send warmly welcomes to old/new tyrants of FFmpeg.
___
ffmpeg-devel mailing list
ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org
https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:14:20PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Niklas Haas (2024-02-20 21:50:33)
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:50:33 +0100 Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > > + Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
> > > + view, best for the project. If a TC
Hi Nicolas
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 2:56 AM Nicolas George wrote:
> Anton Khirnov (12024-02-22):
> > In my updated proposal, based on comments by Niklas and Rémi, I'm
> > leaving it up to the TC member in question, based on the assumption that
> > TC members are honest.
> >
> > A "stronger"
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-23 15:00:24)
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Hi,
> > in the 'avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding' thread it became
> > apparent that there is wide disagreement about the interpretation of
> > this line in the TC rules:
>
Quoting Zhao Zhili (2024-02-23 15:52:50)
>
> > 在 2024年2月23日，下午7:26，Gyan Doshi 写道：
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 2024-02-23 01:26 pm, Nicolas George wrote:
> >> Anton Khirnov (12024-02-22):
> >>> In my updated proposal, based on comments by Niklas and Rémi, I'm
> >>> leaving it up to the TC member in
> 在 2024年2月23日，下午7:26，Gyan Doshi 写道：
>
>
>
>> On 2024-02-23 01:26 pm, Nicolas George wrote:
>> Anton Khirnov (12024-02-22):
>>> In my updated proposal, based on comments by Niklas and Rémi, I'm
>>> leaving it up to the TC member in question, based on the assumption that
>>> TC members are
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:54:56PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 22:51:20)
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:12:11PM +, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Feb 20, 2024, at 12:41 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> > > > wrote:
>
Gyan Doshi (12024-02-23):
> Just to be clear, that's not my basis.
>
> I said,
>
> "As a TC member who is part of the disagreement, I believe your
> participation is recused."
>
> based on the existing rule,
>
> "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse
>
Michael Niedermayer (12024-02-23):
> Each option should provide a patch.
Fine. But the wording can be discussed too.
Regards,
--
Nicolas George
>From 7955ed2c1074f85f0f55a58072a8623c8ff4bf34 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nicolas George
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 15:12:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH]
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Hi,
> in the 'avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding' thread it became
> apparent that there is wide disagreement about the interpretation of
> this line in the TC rules:
>
> > If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that
On 2024-02-23 01:26 pm, Nicolas George wrote:
Anton Khirnov (12024-02-22):
In my updated proposal, based on comments by Niklas and Rémi, I'm
leaving it up to the TC member in question, based on the assumption that
TC members are honest.
A "stronger" version could conceivably leave it to CC
Anton Khirnov (12024-02-22):
> In my updated proposal, based on comments by Niklas and Rémi, I'm
> leaving it up to the TC member in question, based on the assumption that
> TC members are honest.
>
> A "stronger" version could conceivably leave it to CC to decide
> ambiguous cases. Feel free to
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 22:51:20)
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:12:11PM +, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Feb 20, 2024, at 12:41 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >
Quoting Marton Balint (2024-02-20 20:32:19)
>
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>
> > Quoting Marton Balint (2024-02-20 10:12:34)
> >> We have no means to prove financial interest, because it is not public.
> >
> > We also have no means to prove that committee members are acting in
Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-02-22 07:50:36)
> On 2024-02-20 04:39 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > As for determining conflict of interest in case of dishonest TC
> > members, I don't think there is a general solution for it.
>
> This is not about dishonesty. Imagine a TC member genuinely does not
>
Quoting Rémi Denis-Courmont (2024-02-20 20:57:37)
> Le tiistaina 20. helmikuuta 2024, 10.22.57 EET Anton Khirnov a écrit :
> > Hi,
> > in the 'avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding' thread it became
> > apparent that there is wide disagreement about the interpretation of
> >
> > this line in the
Quoting Niklas Haas (2024-02-20 21:50:33)
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:50:33 +0100 Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > + Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
> > + view, best for the project. If a TC member is affected by a conflict of
> > + interest with regards to the case,
On 2024-02-20 04:39 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
As for determining conflict of interest in case of dishonest TC
members, I don't think there is a general solution for it.
This is not about dishonesty. Imagine a TC member genuinely does not
self-assess or agree to a conflict of interest, does
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:12:11PM +, Cosmin Stejerean via ffmpeg-devel
wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 2024, at 12:41 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> >> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 15:01:11)
> >>> On Tue,
> On Feb 20, 2024, at 12:41 PM, Michael Niedermayer
> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 15:01:11)
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>>> [...]
their preferred wording, and
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:50:33 +0100 Anton Khirnov wrote:
> + Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
> + view, best for the project. If a TC member is affected by a conflict of
> + interest with regards to the case, they must announce it and recuse
> + themselves
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 05:10:11PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 15:01:11)
> > On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > [...]
> > > their preferred wording, and then we can have the GA vote on it.
> >
> > Before this GA vote, we
Le tiistaina 20. helmikuuta 2024, 10.22.57 EET Anton Khirnov a écrit :
> Hi,
> in the 'avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding' thread it became
> apparent that there is wide disagreement about the interpretation of
>
> this line in the TC rules:
> > If the disagreement involves a member of the
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Marton Balint (2024-02-20 10:12:34)
We have no means to prove financial interest, because it is not public.
We also have no means to prove that committee members are acting in the
project's interest.
E.g. if I had no qualms about being
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-20 15:01:11)
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> [...]
> > their preferred wording, and then we can have the GA vote on it.
>
> Before this GA vote, we need another extra member discussion/vote.
> Because the last GA reset droped
Anton Khirnov (12024-02-20):
> Hi,
> in the 'avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding' thread it became
> apparent that there is wide disagreement about the interpretation of
> this line in the TC rules:
>
> > If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should
> > recuse themselves
Le 20 février 2024 16:01:11 GMT+02:00, Michael Niedermayer
a écrit :
>On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
>[...]
>> their preferred wording, and then we can have the GA vote on it.
>
>Before this GA vote, we need another extra member discussion/vote.
>Because the
On Tue, Feb 20, 2024 at 09:22:57AM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
[...]
> their preferred wording, and then we can have the GA vote on it.
Before this GA vote, we need another extra member discussion/vote.
Because the last GA reset droped several developers from the GA
thx
[...]
--
Michael
Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-02-20 11:01:15)
>
>
> On 2024-02-20 02:20 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > So IMO the only case that needs to be excluded is 6) - an actual
> > conflict of interest. I therefore propose the following wording changes:
> >
> > --- a/doc/community.texi
> > +++
On 2024-02-20 02:20 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
So IMO the only case that needs to be excluded is 6) - an actual
conflict of interest. I therefore propose the following wording changes:
--- a/doc/community.texi
+++ b/doc/community.texi
-If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that
Quoting Marton Balint (2024-02-20 10:12:34)
> We have no means to prove financial interest, because it is not public.
We also have no means to prove that committee members are acting in the
project's interest.
E.g. if I had no qualms about being dishonest, I could always ask a
friend to object
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Anton Khirnov wrote:
My personal opinion is that broad interpretations of the rule in
question are highly undesirable, as they punish TC members for active
participation in the project. And since TC members tend to be among the
most active contributors, this can
My personal opinion is that broad interpretations of the rule in
question are highly undesirable, as they punish TC members for active
participation in the project. And since TC members tend to be among the
most active contributors, this can substantially reduce our already low
review rate, and
Hi,
in the 'avcodec/s302m: enable non-PCM decoding' thread it became
apparent that there is wide disagreement about the interpretation of
this line in the TC rules:
> If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should
> recuse themselves from the decision.
The word 'involves' in
91 matches
Mail list logo
