On 24.05.24 11:56, Andrew Sayers wrote:
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 03:49:58PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
Hi all
Before this is forgotten again, better start some dicsussion too early than too
late
This comment is inspired by the other subthread, but not directly in reply to
it.
I'm replying to this post rather than get in the middle of all that...
Thanks :)
What happens if someone is hired to do a job that requires access to the ML,
then gets involved in a situation where there's talk of a ban?
If they're banned, does that translate to suspension without pay? With pay?
Banning such a person would jeopardise future funding - if they aren't banned,
will people be concerned about the apparent conflict of interest?
Interesting and something we should think about.
I think the project's well-being should be the priority - meaning if we
vote for a ban of someone that was trusted enough to get a contact from
us in the first place, the ban should be executed - or any other measure
the CC or GA sees fit. Giving a work contact to someone shall not make
us dependent on that person to such an extent.
In a wider sense, hiring a single person to do a job we come to rely on (like
code review) gives the project a bus number of 1. How would the STF react to
a proposal like "we plan to do XYZ in 2025, but if we don't get funding for
2026, we'll drop Z and spend the time on a transition plan instead"?
Speaking as an idealist, we should uphold our procedures independently
of what another entity (except the applicable law) thinks about our
decisions.
Realisticly speaking, we already got some feedback from STF about such
potential break aways on our end. Though these are of course never good
in any such business relation, these things do happen. So up to a
certain extend, it won't remove us from the program. Problems arise if
such things are getting frequent.
We also got another layer of protection vie the SPI linked in between.
If we sanction someone severely who is in current posession of a
contract to do some FFmpeg work, we might stop funding that and give
another contract to someone who can take over.
Not saying that this could work with any kind of work but can be an option.
That brings me to the idea that we need to check the contracts for
potential fail-safe clauses for such extreme cases like these.
Thanks,
Thnilo
_______________________________________________
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".
