[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] clarifying the TC conflict of interest rule

[Anton Khirnov]

Hi Michael,
Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2024-02-24 00:27:08)
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 10:14:20PM +0100, Anton Khirnov wrote:
> > Quoting Niklas Haas (2024-02-20 21:50:33)
> > > On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:50:33 +0100 Anton Khirnov <anton at khirnov.net> wrote:
> > > > + Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
> > > > + view, best for the project. If a TC member is affected by a conflict of
> > > > + interest with regards to the case, they must announce it and recuse
> > > > + themselves from the TC discussion and vote. A conflict of interest is
> > > > + presumed to occur when a TC member has a personal interest (e.g.
> > > > + financial) in a specific outcome of the case.
> > > 
> > > My preferred wording would change "If a TC member is" to "If a TC member
> > > feels they are" and "must" to "should".
> > > 
> > > I read it as a common sense recommendation, not a legalese text. It is
> > > ultimately up to the individual to judge whether they are acting in good
> > > faith or not.
> > 
> > Okay, that makes sense to me. I am then changing my proposal to:
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their
> > view, best for the project. If a TC member feels they are affected by a
> > conflict of interest with regards to the case, they should announce it
> > and recuse themselves from the TC discussion and vote. A conflict of
> > interest is presumed to occur when a TC member has a personal interest
> > (e.g. financial) in a specific outcome of the case.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > If someone wants a "stronger" version of this among the voting options,
> > feel welcome to propose one.
> 
> Lets take a look at "the line"
> 
> "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision."
> 
> There are 3 obvious choices here:
> 1: (unchanged) "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member should recuse themselves from the decision."
> 2: (must)      "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC, that member must   recuse themselves from the decision."
> 3: (remove it) ""
> 
> Thats what the vote should be about IMO.
> 
> Then seperately, theres the question about the (unrelated) text you want to add
> That too has 3 choices
> 1. (unchanged) ""
> 2. (should)    "conflict of interest ... they should announce it and recuse themselves ..."
> 3. (must)      "conflict of interest ... they must   announce it and recuse themselves ..."
> 
> Thats what a 2nd independant vote should be _IF_ we dont already have
> a unanimous agreement about this.
> 
> Now honestly why this uses a "should" after apparently
> this very dissussion here showed that "should" is interpreted differently
> by different people, i dont know.
> I mean either we want people to recuse themselves or we dont if specific
> circumstances apply. It cannot be in the per persons free choice if they
> recuse themselves in a conflict of interrest.
> This just makes no sense. ... Ohh i have a financial interrest in the
> outcome, i dont have to recuse myself, i only "should" ahh ok ...
> 
> The "Each TC member must vote on such decision according to what is, in their view, best for the project."
> I suspect you can just propose adding this and without any vote.
> There may be unanimous agreement for this

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

Do you want to propose another alternative for the vote?

-- 
Anton Khirnov