Quoting Tobias Frost (2026-11-11 02:03:43) > I don't think LLM use should be exempt from existing disciplinary > processes, nor do I consider rules unimportant. > > My point is that we voted against introducing specific disciplinary > provisions for LLM-related violations. We instead chose to rely on > our existing rules and frameworks.
I agree with your point. > That doesn't mean misconduct cannot be addressed. But an alleged > failure to comply with the GR should not automatically be equated > with a CoC violation. > > I also believe disciplinary action should generally be a last resort, > not the first response to a disagreement or a disputed interpretation > of the rules. There should be room for discussion, clarification and > attempts to resolve issues directly before escalating matters to CT > or DAM, unless the circumstances warrant immediate intervention. > > And I think you make a fair point about the DFSG Team being people we > know and value as friends and fellow contributors. That makes it all > the more important to be careful not to respond disproportionately or > reach for disciplinary measures prematurely. > > So I would really, really wish we could turn down the rhetoric a bit. > (And just to be clear, I'm not directing that at this subthread.) > > If I were on the DFSG Team, I don't think this kind of rhetoric would > exactly encourage me to join the discussion. I agree that many post in this thread should ideally be more civilized, which includes omitting some posts altogether - my post included, no doubt. I agree that it is hardly pleasant for the DFSG Team to enter into a heated conversation. Heat and uncivilized noise aside: What is, in your opinion, the proper route of escalation here? Because I fail to recognize a different route than was used. I don't ask for the ideal route (i.e. not "It would be better, if..."). What I ask is which escalations were, in your opinion, unacceptable, leading you to describe it as not "our existing rules and frameworks" and "automatically [...] equated with a CoC violation", which is not how I view Ian's post. If Ian's post came "out of the blue", initiating this whole thread, then sure, I agree with you that it is unacceptably steep escalation to a demand for intervention by our leader. But it wasn't, so there must be some of the previous activity in this thread, including the lack of involvement in this conversation by the criticized team, which you view as not escalating steps. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
