Hi Maxim & Ludo, seg 29 jun 2026 às 10:39:48 (1782740388), [email protected] enviou: > Hi Maxim, > > Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> skribis: > > > I think the Motivations section probably needs to be toned down, as > > Right, please see what I pushed just yesterday. > > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/13/files > > > 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. > > There’s “no blanket pledging not using any of the LLM tools”. On the > contrary, we have change the wording not only to allow for some uses, > but to explicitly list exploratory analysis and non-legally-significant > contributions as accepted uses. > > > 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. > > The commitments set a general direction for the project. > > The policy determines what contributions are acceptable. > > I wasn’t entirely sure whether that split was needed, but I felt like > they are on different levels: the policy is directly applicable rules > that one can look at when assessing contributions, and the commitments > says where we’re going today as a project. >
Though at first I was one of the proponents of a policy-only solution for this GCD, after the discussions we've had and the later changes from a pledge to commitments+policy, I've come understand and support this distinction. To my understanding, this GCD asserts a general distrust of GenAI usage for the various reasons refered to in the motivation section. As such, people more aligned with the project, people that somehow are more officialy tied with guix and that can be seen as project representatives, are being asked to avoid its usage (on the project's context and on the designated use cases) and to commit to that. There are many reasons for this, but I think it boils down to not incentivizing or encouraging (I also miss this phrasing) its usage on the project, to lead by example. The symbolic meaning is very much different if some one time or sporadic contributor proposes a patch using GenAI or if Ludo goes on a streak using it. On the first case it would only mean that it may be accepted, on the second it would mean that this is The Way to go about it. IOW, communicative action. In that regard, there are really two tiers that apply differently to the behaviour of contributors depending on where they stand. The policy is generally applicable to all interactions with the project regardless if you are a first time contributor or if you have (or intend to have) some official ties with Guix. For the later, however, we'd expect not only that they pass the lower bar proposed in the policy but also that they commit to a higher standard of GenAI hygiene. The fundamental question then is: are we willing to make that higher commitment? Cheers!
