From patchwork Fri Jan 11 18:21:07 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Nicolas George X-Patchwork-Id: 11712 Return-Path: X-Original-To: patchwork@ffaux-bg.ffmpeg.org Delivered-To: patchwork@ffaux-bg.ffmpeg.org Received: from ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (ffbox0-bg.ffmpeg.org [79.124.17.100]) by ffaux.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95A144C4C7 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 20:21:15 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.1.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0219068A740; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 20:21:04 +0200 (EET) X-Original-To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org Delivered-To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org Received: from nef2.ens.fr (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.40]) by ffbox0-bg.mplayerhq.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C018689731 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 20:20:57 +0200 (EET) X-ENS-nef-client: 129.199.129.80 Received: from phare.normalesup.org (phare.normalesup.org [129.199.129.80]) by nef2.ens.fr (8.13.6/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id x0BIL9Fv056596 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 19:21:09 +0100 (CET) Received: by phare.normalesup.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 126C4E00D2; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 19:21:09 +0100 (CET) From: Nicolas George To: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 19:21:07 +0100 Message-Id: <20190111182107.17397-1-george@nsup.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.20.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (nef2.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]); Fri, 11 Jan 2019 19:21:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/developer: require transparency about sponshorships. X-BeenThere: ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: FFmpeg development discussions and patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: FFmpeg development discussions and patches Errors-To: ffmpeg-devel-bounces@ffmpeg.org Sender: "ffmpeg-devel" 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 --- 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