| Message ID | 20240226224438.1793-1-michael@niedermayer.cc |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [FFmpeg-devel,1/3] doc/community: Vote in the interest of the project (first part of Antons proposal) | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| yinshiyou/make_loongarch64 | success | Make finished |
| yinshiyou/make_fate_loongarch64 | success | Make fate finished |
| andriy/make_x86 | success | Make finished |
| andriy/make_fate_x86 | success | Make fate finished |
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> > --- > doc/community.texi | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) I intend to apply the patchset tomorrow if there are no objections thx [...]
Le sunnuntaina 3. maaliskuuta 2024, 4.53.01 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> > > --- > > > > doc/community.texi | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > I intend to apply the patchset tomorrow if there are no objections You can't have a strict rule ("must") requiring something vague ("best for the project"). What is best for the project tomorrow may differ from today. What is best for the project w.r.t. Linux distributions may differ from that w.r.t. Windows users. What is best for long term maintainability and sustainability of the project does not align with the best publicity and functionality in the short term. It is also inherently both subjective and unknowable. This sentence just creates fodder for future accusations of bad faith, hypocrisy, misjudgement against TC decisions. While the sentence is meaning well, it adds absolutely nothing of value.
Michael Niedermayer: > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> >> --- >> doc/community.texi | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > I intend to apply the patchset tomorrow if there are no objections > > thx > Gyan sent an alternative proposal which counts as objection. - Andreas
On Sun, Mar 03, 2024 at 10:05:49AM +0200, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > Le sunnuntaina 3. maaliskuuta 2024, 4.53.01 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 11:44:36PM +0100, Michael Niedermayer wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> > > > --- > > > > > > doc/community.texi | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > I intend to apply the patchset tomorrow if there are no objections > > You can't have a strict rule ("must") requiring something vague ("best for the > project"). please see at the end of my reply > > What is best for the project tomorrow may differ from today. yes > What is best for > the project w.r.t. Linux distributions may differ from that w.r.t. Windows > users. yes > What is best for long term maintainability and sustainability of the > project does not align with the best publicity and functionality in the short > term. yes > It is also inherently both subjective and unknowable. we need to be precisse here. "what is best for the project" is both subjective and unknowable, yes but "in their view" is for the decission maker not unknowable, i would instead very much hope they know what their view is. > > This sentence just creates fodder for future accusations of bad faith, > hypocrisy, misjudgement against TC decisions. While the sentence is meaning > well, it adds absolutely nothing of value. This is standard (now i dont know why googles first link ended up in australia but ok) https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca2001172/s181.html " Good faith--directors and other officers (1) A director or other officer of a corporation must exercise their powers and discharge their duties: (a) in good faith in the best interests of the corporation; and (b) for a proper purpose. " This uses "must", and thats actual law IMO its perfectly reasonable to expect committee members to act in the best interrest of FFmpeg. Theres no "should" here, theres a "must" here It should be clear to every adult that oppinions can widely differ and that what one considers to be the best interrest will commonly be different from someone else on another day. Still theres a big difference between "should" act in the best interrest and "must" act in teh best interrest. with "should" someone could just not do it and we will see this. People will not act against their own interrest unless they are required to. thx [...]
diff --git a/doc/community.texi b/doc/community.texi index 90d2b6f366..8a38c6aca0 100644 --- a/doc/community.texi +++ b/doc/community.texi @@ -82,6 +82,8 @@ The TC has 2 modes of operation: a RFC one and an internal one. If the TC thinks it needs the input from the larger community, the TC can call for a RFC. Else, it can decide by itself. +Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their view, best for the project. + If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision. The decision to use a RFC process or an internal discussion is a discretionary decision of the TC.
Signed-off-by: Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> --- doc/community.texi | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)