On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 10:03 PM Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > >> The “Motivation” section gives context, but what matters in the end is > >> the pledge. > > > > I agree with the pledge but disagree with some wording of the > > commitments. > > To me the “commitments” is the pledge; looks like you meant to say you > disagree with the “Motivation” section, is that correct?
I was reading the document sliced with the codeberg comments. I agree with the goals and only take issue with commitment #1, the project prohibition on the use of GenAI. These are powerful technologies, but I trust our community to use them responsibly. > > Banning LLMs is not required to support the pledge, and package > > quality and licensing are general topics not specific to LLM-assisted > > code. > > - Licensing is a general topic but LLMs challenge it in new ways—see > ‘python-chardet’ etc. > > - Package quality is not something that has been discussed, I believe. > > - “Banning LLMs” is not what the pledge says; it’s more nuanced and we > can still work on it together. What use passes the "will not use" of commitment #1? > I would encourage you to explicitly state what would make the GCD > acceptable for you, and what you make it ideal. > > If you would prefer no regulation on LLM usage within the project, > please consider this comment: > > > https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/pulls/13#issuecomment-16470989 I am confused when I read "Are AI contributors going to use and thus maintain and extend tools such as guix import, guix refresh, and guix style that would now compete with agentic genAI". Agents use rather than compete with tools. I don't believe that anyone is looking to upgrade a package using an LLM (other than as a test case). I see that GenAI adopters are looking at challenges like updating core packages and libraries with 10,000 dependents without playing version update whac-a-mole. And in order to make efficient use of project resources we must necessarily group packages updates, which confounds debugging. The power of GenAI to discover vulnerabilities is an especially strong reason to keep packages up-to-date. Why the concern over automating some of the most mundane, neglected tasks when there is so much work to be done? I have not seen a response to the earlier proposal to find compromise by allowing both with-LLM and without-LLM channels within the project, sharing a common core.
