Thanks for engaging, at last. However:
Reinhard Tartler writes ("Re: I will no longer upload to NEW"):
> First, I want to emphasize that this tool was introduced as a
> good-faith initiative from within our team, aimed at increasing
> transparency and sharing the heuristics we see during
> reviews. However, we regret that it was deployed without the broader
> coordination, discussion, or community input that a change of this
> visibility clearly warranted.
I'm pleased that you have apparently recognised that you overstepped,
although it's bizaree to say "we regret that it was deployed" - as if
someone else did it! The right wording is "we apologise that we ...".
But there is a missing consequence here. You write:
> We hear the frustration regarding the noise and inaccuracies the
> tool has produced. An opt-out has already been added, and we are
> actively evaluating how to adjust our tooling and prompts based on
> the feedback in this thread.
That's not good enough. If you accept, as you apparently do, that it
was wrong to deploy this without consultation, then the logical
consequence is that it should be turned off until the consultation has
happened!
So as a response, this is very disappointing. You've apparently
noticed that an apology is expected so you produce something that
looks like an apology (but, somehow, isn't quite an apology).
But you don't significantly change the concrete system behaviour that
was complained about.
Note that the GR text requires *consensus" (see quote below), not
merely consultation. It seems very clear that there is not and
probabloy never will be consensus in favour of sending these reports
to all uploaders to NEW. [1]
So, according to the GR, this deployment must be reversed. I don't
think this is a matter for your discretion. A GR is the most
heavyweight governance mechanism we have and everyone in the project
must honour them.
Even after I and others brought this to your attention, in very clear
terms, you are still defying the project's decision!
Andrey Rakhmatullin writes ("Re: I will no longer upload to NEW"):
> I think it's clear that the wording of, let me quote it again in full,
>
> """
> The use of generative AI does not alter Debian's established expectations
> regarding large-scale or automated project actions. Contributors intending
> to perform actions with broad project impact, such as mass bug filing or
> patch submission, large-scale code modifications, or other automated
> changes or requests affecting many packages or contributors, should seek
> prior discussion and consensus through the appropriate project channels
> before proceeding. Any such automated process should be overseen by a
> human who remains accountable for its behavior and output.
> """
>
> , doesn't talk about all kinds of automation but specifically of
> mass-reporting, mass-modifying etc. It even says that it's about existing
> "established expectations" and not being some sort of a new rule.
Those things are all quoted as examples. Hence the use of "such as".
"Such as" means that other similar things, falling within the
definition, are covered, even if not explicitly listed.
The headline part of that sentence is "actions with broad project
impact". I think it's clear that this "had a broad project impact".
Regretfully,
Ian.
[1] What you have the thing send to yourselves is a different matter.
Sending it just to you would still raise many ethical concerns, and
some of the people who say they won't upload to NEW might still not do
so. But it would at least no longer obviously have the "broad project
impact" that requires consensus, so you are entitled to do that.
