Hi Ricardo, Ricardo Wurmus <[email protected]> writes:
> 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. The CoC enforcement on that matter was unfortunately delayed to the point that responding to the list like two months later didn't seem like a good idea. But that's probably something we should have done in retrospect, there and in other places where warnings or enforcement consequences were sent in private instead of in public, to leave a public trail of enforcement. [...] > 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? It's always been on my mind that when the moment would come, we'd do some ad-hoc public call for volunteers to fill in the gaps, similarly to how it was done in 2019 [0]. I think this moment has come. [0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2019-07/msg00128.html >> 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. There wouldn't be any stopping us from refining/expounding policies w.r.t. to LLM in a new GCD document, but it's become obvious that not doing anything *right now* to clarify whether LLM changes are to be accepted in the project is detrimental to our community. -- Thanks, Maxim
