On 21.05.24 21:42, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le tiistaina 21. toukokuuta 2024, 21.43.44 EEST Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel
a écrit :
Same as above about that we should and STF would.
Especially since no corporate interest usually pays anyone for these
tasks
Sadly true, but...
(in case of reviews it might of course be considered a good thing).
I think some review is better than none. There may be conflict of
interests, but they are weighed by the risk of being caught abusing the
review process.
I hope you realize what you argue in favor of.
Yes. It's quoted above.
Are you claiming that *no* review is better than *some* review done in
*public* for all to see by a paid professional just because the person is
maybe biased?
First, even volunteers have their own biases. Any expert should have opinions
from their experience, and that by definition makes them "biased".
And second, you can't have it both ways. Either we want people to be paid for
review, and they will be answerable to their sponsor, or we want people to
continue to work on their free time.
I think that is what you don't understand.
An STF sponsorship for review would not introduce any bias in favor or
against some patch or sth related.
A company sponsorship would as it would introduce a bias towards 'we
want our stuff in'.
STF has no stuff they want to be reviewed on their behalf.
They are only in favor of stuff being reviewed.
STF is an agency of the German government, applying German government
policies. They certainly do seem to have their own biases, including on tech,
e.g.: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/20/huawei_germany_ban/ to take just
the most recent example to come to mind.
No. Does not apply to any funding we might get.
Reviews need to be unbiased and independent.
Ideally so but that's the land of utopia.
Of course, we talk about what should be, don't we?
STF sponsoring reviews could be an excellent help towards this.
If STF is willing to sponsor reviews, that's welcome. But that would certainly
not be "independent".
It would. As STF would not send patches we'd be obliged to review.
They'd give us money just for the sake of review 'whatever comes our way'.
Corporate influence on the review process already happened in the past
and the chance of getting caught is almost zero.
So how do you that it happened if it does not get caught?
I assume you mean how I know that and the guilty ones did not get
caught? Well they did. An answer in public I will give not.
And "I hope you realise that you are arguing for" Intel, Loongson, etc.
employees to stop reviewing patches.
Syntax error. What exactly do you mean?
According to my assumptions: No, I value reviews of company employees
in general which have been proven to be useful and unbiased e.g. in
getting part of the community reviewing 'stuf' but not their 'own stuff'.
-Thilo
_______________________________________________
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".
