Andreas Enge <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 02:44:51PM +0900, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Someone disapproving a GCD either has to live with the status quo > (which they may indeed prefer, although in this particular case this > means no regulation), or work towards a new consensus.
is that what the status quo is? because up until now, afaik, we were in a holding pattern where llm-involved contributions were not being accepted. of course, none of this has been stated outright, and the gcd was hopefully going to specify a direction. i don't think this applies in general to new, fashionable technology, but given just how contentious llms have proven, i don't think it's reasonable to assume a status quo of acceptance, either. certainly, so what now? if there's meaningful disagreement on what the status quo is, then we're stuck. and apparently there is disagreement: from my reading, gabber understood the status quo to continue the holding pattern, but a fair number of others disagree. imo, just out of necessity, i think we're back in a holding pattern. the conservative choice is to continue rejecting llm authored output until an official position can be established. -bjc
