Hi Maxim,
I can tell you that the currently active co-maintainers (Tobias,
Efraim
and myself) still take CoC enforcement and the well-being of our
community seriously. We've had gaps and inexcusable delays in
the
summer, but things should be back to normal now.
Thanks for your response.
I hope that there will be a public response to the CoC violations
in the discussions of GCD008.
I speak from personal experience when I say that I understand that
dealing with violations of community guidelines is one of the most
uncomfortable duties of a co-maintainer, but the impact on the
community vastly outsizes the discomfort.
This probably sounds terribly insensitive, so I'm just going to
say it as plainly as I can: have the co-maintainers considered to
continue the cycle of passing on duties (including that of
"maintainer", but also including "moderator") to other volunteers?
What is your plan with regards to eventual succession?
About the LLM situation, we're considering the addition of a
trivial
non-LLM policy to the contribution guidelines of the manual. It
feels a
bit off that this policy decision would come from the
co-maintainers
after going through a consensus-driven process (GCD 008) [...]
I don't expect the co-maintainers to decide anything. Clearly,
the shortcomings of GCD001 have made it possible to repurpose what
was meant to be a *constructive* objection and turn it into an
unimaginative veto. My comment about the "minimal noncommittal
response ... to the LLM situation" referred to the near total
absence of most of the maintainers in the discussion, and the
uncharacteristic request/order to stop discussing the topic, which
prevents a non-GCD route to preparing for formally finding
consensus.
--
Ricardo
