Gabriel Wicki <[email protected]> writes: > Hi Christine > > I thank you for sharing your thoughts! > >> the status quo is assumed that we are at free rein to accept genAI >> contributions > > I don't think this is an adequate assumption of the current status > quo—or did I miss something?
It's unclear. It's indeed a serious risk. This GCD was meant to bring clarity. >> I do not enthusiastically agree with the change of beginning to permit >> genAI contributions into Guix, which we have effectively been on >> moratorium for now. > > Same here. Well, I am afraid that without this GCD, we are looking at just that. >> So leaving that moratorium I think should be its own consensus >> process, should this GCD fail. > > I agree. > > I don't understand why the withdrawal of this GCD would lead to an "all > contributions, no matter how questionable, will be pushed directly to the > master branch until we get sued and have to close shop" type of > situation. I doubt we consented on that. I am having trouble rectifying what you have said in this email with "disagree" rather than "I accept". But I have a concern, because I have been looking at your prior emails in this exchange and also with GCD 7. There is great irony that you are both saying that there was not enough time to come to consensus, and also: > I know this was an especially long and hard process that consumed an > unbelievable amount of resources. I hope we can circumvent the waste of > many of these resources in the future, for I am convinced that we could > use them more wisely and sustainably. Which is it? That we need more time, or that it is too many resources used already? I have a sense that part of the challenge you may be having is with the GCD process itself, and possibly as a governance process that is happening within Guix and not specifically as coming from GNU. Is this the case? Because if this is true, this kind of objection means we have a situation in which the GCD process altogether cannot succeed. For me, I think this is a serious situation. Ricardo and David both expressed that their continued participation in Guix is predicated upon being able to reach some sort of consensus on this GCD or something like it, and I know that applies for many contributors. This process has been long, exhausting, and has involved *many compromises*. I now personally feel stuck. What *is* the alternative? Are we in a de-facto moratorium on genAI contributions until a GCD in the positive is reached? Or is it free reign? It seems like nobody knows. But this GCD, more than most, has felt existential in that it promised to bring clarity on an urgent issue. Many people poured themselves into it, and it's difficult to see how the situation will do better. It is true that consensus cannot be achieved coercively, and I do not mean to coerce any result. But I fear instability in the face of not having achieved consensus on this document, if that is indeed the outcome we seem to have achieved. And I wonder what it means for any future GCD. It is a particular risk if the perspective from one member that the process itself is a waste of time can manifest the process into being a waste of time. That, certainly, would be poor for everyone. - Christine
