[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] STF 2025

[Thilo Borgmann]

On 20.05.24 20:51, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le sunnuntaina 19. toukokuuta 2024, 14.29.43 EEST Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-
> devel a écrit :
>> [...]
>>
>>>> * Fund administrative / maintainance work (one example is the mailman
>>>> upgrade that is needed>>
>>>>    with the next OS upgrade on one of our servers (this is not as trivial
>>>>    as one might expect). Another example here may be some git related
>>>>    tools if we find something that theres a broad consensus about.
>>>
>>> I agree that this should be paid but I would expect that STF would not be
>>> too keen on it, not that I'd know really.
>> We should absolutely pay for such activity and STF is very well willing
>> to fund such things.
> 
> Again, I don't know but that seems to stray from their stated goals. Also this
> is most certainly not a full-time job, and it requires a very high level of
> trust. In practice, what this really means is paying Michael.
> 
> It is more of a question whether STF is willing to pay for this, and whether a
> reasonable task description with a reasonable average prorated workload and a
> pay can be defined.

Again, I do know. "...STF is very well willing to fund such things." 
does not sound like an assumption to me.


>>> And again, it is completely reasonable to be paid for that, and also for
>>> code reviews and writing test cases (if we want to complete the menial
>>> task list), but I am perplexed as to STF's stance on that.
> 
>> Same as above about that we should and STF would.
>> Especially since no corporate interest usually pays anyone for these tasks
> 
> Sadly true, but...
> 
>> (in case of reviews it might of course be considered a good thing).
> 
> I think some review is better than none. There may be conflict of interests,
> but they are weighed by the risk of being caught abusing the review process.

I hope you realize what you argue in favor of. Reviews need to be 
unbiased and independent. STF sponsoring reviews could be an excellent 
help towards this.

Corporate influence on the review process already happened in the past 
and the chance of getting caught is almost zero.

About the rest, I think you already said that you don't find funding 
non-full-time positions useful in another thread - no need to reiterate 
that I don't agree with that nor with your assumptions that should lead 
to that.

-Thilo