Rémi Denis-Courmont (12024-02-18): > 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.
This is the most hypocritical argument put forward in this discussion yet. > 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? And you break your own record in the very next sentence. > You can argue that the rule is vague, and it is. But if anything, we can at > least eliminate absurd interpretations. The rule is not vague at all. > (And in any case, it says "should", > not "must".) Indeed. I wondered when somebody dishonest would try to exploit that loophole. The obvious answer is: if somebody in the TC does not do what the rules say they SHOULD, then the general assembly SHOULD vote them out at the next election. Or earlier, because a vote of no confidence can be brought at any time. -- Nicolas George _______________________________________________ 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".
