Hi again, I've thought a lot about this email.
The proposed replacements look OK for GNU Boot as it's in the same ballpark than Coreboot (or Linux) where commits still need to respect copyright laws. With that, I see no issue with sending patches to Guix, or pushing people to do that. I didn't ask my co-maintainer though. The biggest problem that remains for me is what we both meant by having bigger impact together. This affect patch reviews. You had Guix in mind and I had something broader: community practices within FLOSS. And I always care about the practical to not be manipulated (eyes on the prize). If we end up with rules incompatible with GNU, I think it would be cleaner to just have a GCD dedicated to leaving GNU and not bundle such changes in a GCD about LLMs. And most importantly even if we try to not follow GNU rules on LLMs while staying GNU, this would lead to tensions that accumulate over time and we'd end up not being able to use GNU's resources for dealing with LLMs either. So if that happens, how am I supposed to help review a commit made with the help of an LLM without *any* guidance? I assume that GNU will provide that guidance at some point. I am not a lawyer, and I also admit that I didn't follow lawsuits about LLMs. If the goal is to leave GNU, would Conservancy provide custom guidance tailored to the rules made by Guix instead? Or do they have rules that come with guidance? Or should I just not review commits made with LLMs? That would probably go against the decision taken if this GCD passes (and so also divide people in practice). And note that I don't agree with everything GNU or the FSF does either. In the past I even proposed in the gnu-linux-libre mailing list to just have the FSDG distributions self-manage the FSDG and let the FSF deal with the fait accompli, but this was for practical reasons as well (distributions should have a say, it looked unmaintained, etc). But nobody was interested in doing the work. For this GCD, I would vote to keep being compatible with GNU for practical reasons. Though I'll still ask GNU (in the gnu-prog-discuss mailing list) for input on the rules chosen by Guix as they may have some feedback that could be useful. Also, all these tensions (between the democracy of a project and a bigger umbrella that isn't completely democratic) is not new. For people care about democracy / anarchy / consensus, there are sometimes tensions between having a perfect ideological frame with a perfect process to take decisions and so on and not getting anything done, and the opposite (a far from ideal framework and getting things done). And personally I'm more for getting things done and having the rest help that goal as much as possible, while also not making compromises that makes the end result not better than if nothing was done. And for the record I'm also aware that exact opposites also exist: people who abuse power which then stands in the way of getting things done, situations where everything fits nicely (things are done and the decision taking process is good enough), etc. Denis.
pgp92AflbrrfM.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
