On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 09:11:32AM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > Not being experienced with GRs, and not willing to discuss this with an > AI tool, I would like to solicit opinions about what kind of majority > this would need.
I like the "neutral" spirit of your draft proposal a lot. If you end up proposing it officially, I'll very likely second it. Two specific comments: 1) It would be wise to add a preamble about it being explicitly a "position statement" as per Constitution 4.1.5, to avoid overarching interpretation/application in case it wins. (Similar to what Lucas' did in his proposal.) 2) And speaking of Lucas' proposal, in the interest of avoiding over-complicated ballots for voters, I'd like you and Lucas to comment on how the two relate to each other. In my view, at a very high level, they are quite similar. Lucas' proposal has an additional explicit point about mandatory disclosure of AI assistance. Yours doesn't and I'm assuming that's on purpose, correct? Other than that, Lucas' proposal has more specific comments on various aspects/consequences of AI assistance; your doesn't, but as a voter I don't see this difference as something that would make me strongly favor one option over the other. So one possible way forward to simplify the ballot, if you two agree, would be to have on the ballot your proposal (which is shorter, KISS) + and another option which has identical text + a paragraph about mandatory disclosure. Thanks a lot for your work on this, Cheers -- Stefano Zacchiroli - https://upsilon.cc/zack Full professor of Computer Science, Polytechnic Institute of Paris Co-founder & Chief scientific officer Software Heritage
