On 2024-02-19 03:16 am, Vittorio Giovara wrote:
On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 8:02 PM Gyan Doshi <ffm...@gyani.pro> wrote:
On 2024-02-18 11:33 pm, Anton Khirnov wrote:
Quoting Gyan Doshi (2024-02-18 05:06:30)
b) what "maximalist" interpretation?
A non-maximalist interpretation would be that a TC member is only
excluded from voting when they authored the patch that is being
disputed.
If the promulgators meant to only prevent proposers of the disputed
change to not take part, then
the verbiage would be different.
In looking up how this clause came to be present, I came across the
following messages:
https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2020-December/273443.html
(Nicolas George originally proposes this clause - wording is more
restrictive)
https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021-January/274822.html
(this one is interesting, you objected to the clause but on the grounds
that it was all-encompassing i.e. anyone commenting on the dispute was
potentially subjected to recusal and referred to some 'model'
discussion, so your describing my reading as maximalist is weird since
that is how you read it - you just happen to object to this rule)
https://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/2021-January/274826.html
(Ronald clarifies that "involved" should be constrained to just be one
of the two parties -- of which you happen to be one)
There's the matter of what the rule currently is, distinct from what it
should be. What it ideally should be is that the decision should be
taken by a fresh set of eyes consisting of those who haven't become or
are seen to be publicly invested in the outcome. So the TC should have a
set of alternates - those who can make up the quorum and constitute an
odd number of voters when some from the first 5 are recused.
I'd like to offer a lighter interpretation of the rule, the mailing list is
the common playing ground, where discussions and disagreements can be had.
In case of a technical "maximalist" disagreement, then either party can
invoke the TC to judge on the matter. If anyone in the TC is involved in
the patch, as if it's an author or significantly contributed to it, then
they should step away from voting. In other words the "level of
involvement" rule takes place at the TC level, not at the ffmpeg-devel
discussion.
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.
Also consider that even in a vote recusal, the member's
arguments will still be read and by all likelihood taken into consideration
by the TC, so yours seems to be a literal interpretation of the rule,
instead of the spirit of the rule, which in my opinion matters more.
Of course. There's no mind-reading or mind-control machine here. Humans
aren't automatons either. The judges on any Supreme Court are older
human beings with all the deep convictions that one acquires during a
long lifetime but that's the best we can do. The rules are meant to be
the most that is practically feasible within mutually observable
reality, not ideally efficient within an omniscient universe.
Regards,
Gyan
_______________________________________________
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 "unsubscribe".
