On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 9:11 PM Rémi Denis-Courmont <r...@remlab.net> wrote:
> Le torstaina 1. helmikuuta 2024, 19.45.52 EET Vittorio Giovara a écrit : > > The same of course should apply to any other future funding, it must be > > either the community (via GA) or a third party setting up the > sponsorship. > > Neither the community or the GA can forbid people from seeking funding for > themselves. I suppose that, in theory, developers could be required to > sign an > agreement to that effect before they are allowed to submit code for > inclusion, > but that seems neither practical, nor desirable to me. > > That is probably not what you meant, but that is what this reads like. > Yeah that's not what I meant, sorry for the confusion: what I meant was whoever secures the funding, then cannot be directly funded for any of the projects attributed in the current funding. This might be counterintuitive and possibly controversial, but the goal here is to distinguish benefiting the community and benefiting oneself as well as avoid losing a possible funding: I would really like to avoid that we miss out on funding out of fear that whoever found the funding will strongarm the community into accepting something that the community may reject. In other words, this is both protection for the community and for whoever finds the funding. I don't know how enforce-able it is, or if it is something that can actually facilitate accepting future funding for the community, but since we're in a time crunch and we're voting with unanswered open questions, it is something we should at least consider. -- Vittorio _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
