Hi Ludo,
On Wed, 04 Mar 2026 at 23:32, Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote:
> The one thing I made clear in this thread and in previous discussions on
> Mastodon¹ is that I believe “policing” what people are doing would be
> counterproductive and plain wrong.
For sure! I know you are far far away from any idea to write a document
about judging or constraining the habits of people who happen to
contribute to Guix or to use it. I had no doubt! Even before reading
all your clear messages. :-)
Do we have a misunderstanding?
I fully agree with the aim: « this needs to be formalized ». And my
attempt was to feed the discussion in order to find a suitable
formalization.
Please note that the first part of my comment wasn’t about the need of
an “opinion” or the need of a stance on the topics of
“AI” / LLM-generated thing, but it was about using a policy. And the
second part (speaking about “social contract”) was indeed about using an
“opinion” and/or a stance.
Maybe I misread: a policy on a particular issue is the attitude and
actions regarding that issue, i.e., a policy is the formalization about
how a group polices an area by making decisions or making sure that what
is done is correct.
And considering:
As this discussion shows, we’ll probably need a policy as to what we
accept in Guix: what packages we allow (is “open weight” good enough?
what’s the Corresponding Source?), and how we deal with contributions.
Then (1) I still think it’s useful to point out a potential slippery
slope (i.e., being counterproductive) when considering a policy on the
topic of “AI” or some LLM-generated thing and (2) I still think the way
to set goals for what we’re building together and support one another
cannot be formalized by a policy.
Moreover a policy that we cannot enforce isn’t a policy; it’s something
like some be-kind guidelines or a “social contract” or a project stance.
Maybe I have misread. :-)
Maybe behind « we’ll probably need a policy », you didn’t have in mind
the same kind of “policy” I’m speaking about – in the context of the
thread, it still appears to me the meaning of a policy. Anyway. In all
cases, we are on the same wavelength about the need to formalize, and
also about the content of such formalization, I guess.
> Instead, I think we should set goals for what we’re building together
> and support one another
We agree: the stance as a project appears to me to draw what as a
project we value.
> because that’s what it will take to stay strong
> in the middle of this “AI” storm.
And since it’s only the beginning of the storm then the middle will be
after several years, if not decades. So yes, we must stay strong!
Last, as I wrote elsewhere:
We cannot do anything, but we cannot do nothing.
We are powerless about the increase of “AI“ everywhere and all the harm
it drags, but being powerless does not imply that we have to resign in
the void.
Cheers,
simon
