Le sunnuntaina 18. helmikuuta 2024, 2.43.14 EET Michael Niedermayer a écrit : > > > You clearly are one of the parties to the disagreement, and "recuse > > > themselves from the decision" is self-explanatory. > > > > Such a maximalist interpretation makes no sense - why should my opinion > > become invalid because I commented on a patch, > > "If the disagreement involves a member of the TC" > does IMHO not preclude commenting on a patch. > > For a disagreement we need 2 parties. > For example one party who wants a patch in and one who blocks the patch. or > 2 parties where both block the other.
This is an utterly absurd interpretation. By that logic, a TC member would automatically become party to the disagreement by expressing an opinion within even the TC itself. In fact, if you would read it maximally that way, any who has an opinion, even if they have not expressed it, would be a party. So what then, the FFmpeg thought police? You can argue that the rule is vague, and it is. But if anything, we can at least eliminate absurd interpretations. (And in any case, it says "should", not "must".) -- レミ・デニ-クールモン http://www.remlab.net/ _______________________________________________ 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".
