[FFmpeg-devel] [RFC] STF 2025

[Thilo Borgmann]

On 21.05.24 21:42, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> Le tiistaina 21. toukokuuta 2024, 21.43.44 EEST Thilo Borgmann via ffmpeg-devel
> a écrit :
>>>> 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.
> 
> Yes. It's quoted above.
> 
> Are you claiming that *no* review is better than *some* review done in
> *public* for all to see by a paid professional just because the person is
> maybe biased?
> 
> First, even volunteers have their own biases. Any expert should have opinions
> from their experience, and that by definition makes them "biased".
> 
> And second, you can't have it both ways. Either we want people to be paid for
> review, and they will be answerable to their sponsor, or we want people to
> continue to work on their free time.

I think that is what you don't understand.
An STF sponsorship for review would not introduce any bias in favor or 
against some patch or sth related.
A company sponsorship would as it would introduce a bias towards 'we 
want our stuff in'.
STF has no stuff they want to be reviewed on their behalf.
They are only in favor of stuff being reviewed.


> STF is an agency of the German government, applying German government
> policies. They certainly do seem to have their own biases, including on tech,
> e.g.: https://www.theregister.com/2024/05/20/huawei_germany_ban/ to take just
> the most recent example to come to mind.

No. Does not apply to any funding we might get.


>> Reviews need to be unbiased and independent.
> 
> Ideally so but that's the land of utopia.

Of course, we talk about what should be, don't we?


>> STF sponsoring reviews could be an excellent help towards this.
> 
> If STF is willing to sponsor reviews, that's welcome. But that would certainly
> not be "independent".

It would. As STF would not send patches we'd be obliged to review.
They'd give us money just for the sake of review 'whatever comes our way'.


>> Corporate influence on the review process already happened in the past
>> and the chance of getting caught is almost zero.
> 
> So how do you that it happened if it does not get caught?

I assume you mean how I know that and the guilty ones did not get 
caught? Well they did. An answer in public I will give not.


> And "I hope you realise that you are arguing for" Intel, Loongson, etc.
> employees to stop reviewing patches.

Syntax error. What exactly do you mean?
According to my assumptions: No, I value reviews of company employees 
in general which have been proven to be useful and unbiased e.g. in 
getting part of the community reviewing 'stuf' but not their 'own stuff'.

-Thilo