On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 07:21:07PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > Rationale: > > * This requirement should offset a little the incentive to neglect > design, code quality and politeness during the review process when > done for money. > > * The review process itself and future maintenance burden cost efforts > to the whole project; knowing that sponsorship has been given, to an > individual or to the whole project, helps evaluating if the benefits > match the costs. > > * Inclusion in FFmpeg implies implicit endorsement by the project; > we owe to our users to disclose when this endorsement is not genuine; > this is to relate to mandatory flagging of advertisement in mass media. > > * Systematic disclosure and transparency make a stronger position > against accusations of bias or conflict of interest for difficult > policy decisions. > > * Documenting bounties may give an incentive to new contributors > who may not be aware of these opportunities. > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas George <geo...@nsup.org> > --- > doc/developer.texi | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/doc/developer.texi b/doc/developer.texi > index 5c342c9106..1d77250083 100644 > --- a/doc/developer.texi > +++ b/doc/developer.texi > @@ -420,6 +420,13 @@ your name after it. > If at some point you no longer want to maintain some code, then please help > in > finding a new maintainer and also don't forget to update the > @file{MAINTAINERS} file. > > +@subheading Disclose sponsors and other remunerations > +If the patch is the result of sponsored work, expects a bounty or benefited > +from any kind of specific remuneration or payment, include the identity of > +the sponsors, the identity of the recipients (if it is not exactly the > +author of the patch) and the amount (or an approximation if it is not > +possible to define it exactly) in the commit message. > + > We think our rules are not too hard. If you have comments, contact us. > > @chapter Code of conduct > @@ -664,6 +671,9 @@ are notoriously left unchecked, which is a serious > problem. > @item > Test your code with valgrind and or Address Sanitizer to ensure it's free > of leaks, out of array accesses, etc. > + > +@item > +Did you disclose any sponsorship in the commit message? > @end enumerate > > @chapter Patch review process
You should add yourself to https://ffmpeg.org/consulting.html I have no doubt code you would write for money would be of high quality. And more paid developers equal more contributions which is a good thing. Also iam not sure how this change would interact with the GDPR or a NDA iam no lawyer .... Thanks [...] -- Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB It is what and why we do it that matters, not just one of them.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel