[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] doc/developer: require transparency about sponshorships.

[Nicolas George]

James Almer (12019-01-13):
> I seem to remember the famous votes count voices, if one were to be called.

You should check again, the rules state that mails without arguments do
not count.

> Nicolas, no one is in favor of this thing. It's an invasion of privacy

I do not consider this specific point worthy of privacy protection.

> and has no way to be enforced.

Are you assuming that the contributors, especially the sponsored ones,
are usually dishonest? I do not. The way to "enforce" this is to remind
people when something suggests they might have neglected to do it, and
expect honesty from them.

If you consider the contributors dishonest, a much stronger measure is
necessary, I hope you agree.

>				 It will potentially deter contributions

And it will potentially attract contributions.

> and generate bias among reviewers if the patch states it's sponsored
> nature.

And correct the bias among submitters when it is.

>	  The last thing this project needs is more walls and more
> aggressiveness.
> 
> You and you alone want this in, and everyone else so far doesn't. It's
> not making it in.

Then I will ask you, and everybody who objects, this:

How do you propose to address the conflict of interest of a sponsored
contributor pushing a patch without review?

Regards,

-- 
  Nicolas George
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://ffmpeg.org/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20190113/d224b174/attachment.sig>