On 2026-05-27 at 11:57+02:00, Hugo Buddelmeijer wrote: > On 5/26/26 10:23, Nguyễn Gia Phong wrote: > > On 2026-05-26 at 08:28+02:00, Pjotr Prins wrote: > > > I suggest we go with Christine's wording, leave out everything else > > > on energy, evilness, worries of the future, etc. etc. > > > All we should really care about is that no slop enters Guix > > > and that people take ownership of what they do > > > whatever way they go about it. > > > > Seconded. We only need to reach a concensus regarding > > the course of action, not the reason behind it. > > On the other hand, it is easier to reach consensus if we know each > others reasons, because then we understand what they find important. > > That is, we might concede on a point that is unimportant to us when we > realize it is very important to someone else (and hopefully vice-versa), > and find a solution that we are all happy (enough) with. > > It is even useful to record part of the rational, because over time the > arguments might change. E.g. the legal aspect is important to many, so > our consensus might shift if the legal landscape changes. > > We know when we might need to reconsider our consensus if we recorded > what our original reasoning was. Otherwise we'd be blindly following > rules without knowing why the rule exists.
I agree that the reasoning should be somewhere in the consensus process, I just prefer it not to be encoded into our constitution. I enjoy reading the current version of GCD 8, and I think it is a lovely _proposal_ reflecting Ludo's personal thoughts. I don't agree with every word and phrase in that document, nor with the opions of those having been participating in this thread. While that's fine for the human relationships within Guix (we are all individuals), it's the problem if we want to reach a consensus. >From the draft itself, > This proposal takes a clear stance that not everyone may agree with. This signals the draft might be in the wrong format. It's not supposed to be a proposal, but its result, i.e. the thing that everyone agrees with. For example, consider the humanist framing, > empowering people, increasing their autonomy, by providing them > the means to study and adapt the software to their needs; > it is about knowledge sharing and mutual aid. I don't like positioning developers as doing favors to the people using software, or that crafting is somehow nobel or precious and worth of preservation; rather, everybody should have a natural right over their tools and we share a responsibility building that ideal world. In practice it doesn't matter which school of thought one is in for us to work together, but signing off this GCD as-is means I have to subscribe to the former filosofi as a mean to my end (the ban of LLM output in Guix) and I feel "manipulated".
