(dropping Marc and adding the Community Team instead [0])
Marc Haber writes ("Re: I will no longer upload to NEW [and 1 more messages]"):
> Please note that sending the
> mail is just a strawman being used here. The REAL goal is to forbid the
> DFSG team from using an LLM at all. You're just holding on to to mail
> because that's easier to grasp.
This is a wholly unwarranted accusation of bad faith. Let me replace
a part of my message that Marc snipped:
[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.
Here, in the very mail Marc is replying to, I explicitly say that the
DFSG team is entitled to do the thing that Marc claims I am trying to
forbid.
(I hope I don't I need to explain the singnificant differences between
sending a report to every uploader to NEW, and sending those reports
only to the team who wanted them.)
> You're trying to twist an election result that
> didn't go your way to fit your own agenda.
I am relying on the literaal text of the winning option. It does not
need twisting. Marc himself wrote "f*ck, [Ian]'s right" in
<[email protected]> !
We're living in some kind of bizarre mirror universe here where people
can admit that white is white one day, but the next day say black is
white and that their opponents are "twisting" things. I realise it's
an unpopular position nowadays, but I still think words have meaning,
and that important people who are painted as winning votes still need
to follow the rules.
So my agenda here is to limit the broad-scale use of LLMs in Debian to
situations where we have consensus, *as decided by the GR*.
I realise that I am still tilting at windmills here. The DFSG team
appear to have decided that they can disregard the decisions we have
collectively made. There seems little real prospect that any of
Debian's leadership or disciplinary bodies will enforce the plain
meaning of our decisions and governance documents, against such a
high-status and powerful team - especially on an issue where there is
such overwhelming propaganda in society at large. There also seems
little real prospect of consequences for the toxic messages that eg
Marc and Tobias have been posting. "It's a controversial topic"
will be the answer. So, we can almost never enforce against bad
conduct because enforcement is almost always controversial. And
because I keep forwarding toxic mails to the CT, I may well be seen as
the problem. I wouldn't be surprised to be told by the Community Team
to stop complaining, like the last time I was subjected to sustained
hostility, from multiple people, here on this list.
So I'm going to let this rest again now and hope to avoid reading any
more of this stuff. I anyone feels they must post argumentative
messages, please don't CC me. (I'd just forward them to CT.)
Ian.
[0] Note that Marc CC'd his mail to me personally. I didn't have to
come here looking for it.
--
Ian Jackson <[email protected]> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
