Hi Greg, Greg Hogan <[email protected]> skribis:
> Since we recognize that this is an imperfect policy the only path > available to amending the document is to add a sunset or expiration > clause. A period of one year would be reasonable and allow time for > the publication of GNU guidelines as well as for project contributors > to explore the use of generative AI in the limited cases outlined by > the GCD. I am somewhat reluctant to automated expiration because that could leave us in limbo if the measures chosen in the GCD expire and nobody picks up the work of consulting the community to determine what to do next. It seems safer to me to come up with a GCD defining a new policy whenever we have input that calls for a change. It forces us to have a discussion on how to address these changes. > As to the current document, I still find unclear the project > commitment to "will not use genAI" with the separate policy for > contributions which documents the use thereof. As I tried to explain, this is pragmatic: if a newcomer comes up and proposes a “simple” patch claimed to be LLM-assisted, I would rather not turn them down. But the project itself, people who are explicitly engaged as team members etc., can make a stronger commitment. That’s the spirit. > And with the recent change under "contribution acceptance" in > bd04d0962a I would be happy to see included something similar to > "mechanical integration of upstream bug fixes, configuration > parameters, and minimal source adaptations required to achieve a > successful Guix build". I wouldn’t want the list of “Examples of non-creative changes” under “Contribution acceptance” to be too long because they are just that, examples. Do you see any ambiguity here? Thanks for your quick feedback, Ludo’.
