Hi,
I agree that providing an advertizing platform for LLM/LAM/MCP/A2A
providers should be avoided.
Detailed information could still be provided in announcements or the
mailing list if others might be interested.
There will be public discussions about who used/likes/prefers whatever
model/tool for whatever task anyway.
With the patch itself, maybe it might be important to know how AI
has been used/helped to create it. Copy+paste code from AI / getting
code from AI but verify,rework,adjust manually / getting the basic idea
or how to overcome issues, but coding done by humans / comments
provided by AI ...
This dicussion might be the easiest part imagining the future.
What if the patch/feature would actually make use of MCP/A2A - that's a
different story. Local guardrails need to be guaranteed, remote ones
requested from the endpoint, eventually dropped if not satisfied like in
a failed TLS handshake.
Just my 2c,
Christian
