James Almer (12019-01-13): > I seem to remember the famous votes count voices, if one were to be called.
You should check again, the rules state that mails without arguments do not count. > Nicolas, no one is in favor of this thing. It's an invasion of privacy I do not consider this specific point worthy of privacy protection. > and has no way to be enforced. Are you assuming that the contributors, especially the sponsored ones, are usually dishonest? I do not. The way to "enforce" this is to remind people when something suggests they might have neglected to do it, and expect honesty from them. If you consider the contributors dishonest, a much stronger measure is necessary, I hope you agree. > It will potentially deter contributions And it will potentially attract contributions. > and generate bias among reviewers if the patch states it's sponsored > nature. And correct the bias among submitters when it is. > The last thing this project needs is more walls and more > aggressiveness. > > You and you alone want this in, and everyone else so far doesn't. It's > not making it in. Then I will ask you, and everybody who objects, this: How do you propose to address the conflict of interest of a sponsored contributor pushing a patch without review? Regards, -- Nicolas George
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
