Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> writes:
> Hello Guix! > > Many of us got lost with the discussions and incremental changes made to > GCD 008. I invite y’all to take a fresh look at version 2 of this GCD: > > > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/src/commit/393162a2f98b109d7f1062e72ac40641dc8db486/008-human-crafting.md > > Please comment here or on Codeberg, particularly if you think major > concerns that you brought up were not taken into account (“minor” issues > can still be discussed, but let’s prioritize major issues.) I think the Motivations section probably needs to be toned down, as Andreas also suggested; there are diverging views on it in the discussions, and while it's not part of the proposed commitments/policy per see, it's still part of the final document that will be shared/linked on the Guix blog for example and appear as if everybody agreed on it as a whole. I've given it a new read. I still stand behind my earlier comments about point 1 [0]. About the first (1) pledge point: I disagree about blanket pledging not using any of the LLM tools. As others have found in our community, they can have a use. I'd suggest dropping this point of the pledge. I'm not sure why we need both a set of commitments and a policy; it seems the later could be written to cover the actionable commitments? I'd prefer having just a policy, for clarity and simplicity. It seems the most disagreeable points are also in the commitments, such as point 1, which appears to discourage any use of LLM for any Guix contributors (only to mention later in the policy that perhaps that's OK as an "exploration" or for submitting non-creative changes). --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- 1. GenAI use disclosure. Contributors using genAI MUST disclose its use and how they used it. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- I think if we want to keep this point it should specify how (an Assisted-by: git trailer? that'd be a kind of advertisement, which I despise); also if the only LLM-authored changes to be accepted are those arguably non-copyrightable because not creative, why bother tracking GenAI use for them? It seems like adding friction for little gain (I understand this was proposed earlier). Point 4. of the policy is again trying to tell us what it's OK for us to do with LLMs; similar to the first commitment; which I think is unwelcome and unnecessary. The critical policy points to me appear to be 2. and 3. If we could focus on these alone, I think we'd probably be in a good position to find consensus. > I am tentatively scheduling the end of the discussion period for > July 11th, which leaves us 3 more weeks. (If we can converge before, > that’s even better!) While I will be away myself too during that period, I doubt the reduced time to discuss this difficult topic will help converging toward a final, agreeable document. Perhaps, the GCD should be withdrawn and resubmitted at a later date, e.g. in September when people are back from vacation and re-energized? Thanks for the edits so far (though it's not yet fully agreeable to me). [0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-05/msg00348.html -- Thanks, Maxim
