Hi,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 05:43:30PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have gone through your short arguments again:
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 04:03:28PM +0200, Gabriel Wicki wrote:
> > 1. From the project perspective: Discussions continued way into the
> > deliberation period: the proposal could use some more time to (at least)
> > smooth the rough edges.
> > 2. Consent-wise: Time-pressure and an overwhelming amount of FUD grossly
> > contradict my understanding of consent.
> > 3. From a community perspective: I don't think it is appropriate to
> > craft contribution guidelines as a by-product of the LLM discussion.
> > 4. Quality of the document: It is still rather unclear in a few areas.
> > 5. Technically: The (please excuse the potentially wrong label)
> > "Luddite" angle ("these tools hurt real craftspersonship") seems to be
> > historically wrong, in a way that is ignorant in how progress works in
> > the tech world.
>
> I find it remarkable that none of them (except maybe 4) is on the *content*
> of the final document. Disapproval within the deliberation period is
> meant to convey that you cannot live with the outcome of the process.
> To quote GCD 001:
> "“I disapprove”, meaning that one opposes the implementation of the
> proposal."
>
> Instead you mainly state that you do not like the process itself (lack
> of time; which actually contradicts your other claim that the process
> was long and took many resources); or the mixture or non-mixture of
> topics in the same GCD (3, which does not say whether you actually
> disagree with what is written in the document); or the framing of the
> text ("luddite").
I certainly have had a lot of concerns about this GCD. It's legitimate for 'one'
to respond to the framing of the question itself. It can't be a situation that
by proposing a GCD we're saying that there will be some form of outcome in that
area.
For example, if I put forward a GCD for a policy against use of Guix in nuclear
facilities, an engagement with the question would not be on the detail, but on
the fact that the framing was against Free Software [0].
I realise it's difficult for everyone to engage with a spiriti of generousity
at this point.
Steve / Futurile
[0] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause-No-Nuclear-License.html
