Gabriel Wicki <[email protected]> writes:
> 2. Consent-wise: Time-pressure and an overwhelming amount of FUD grossly
> contradict my understanding of consent.
I care an awful lot about consent.
> I know this was an especially long and hard process that consumed an
> unbelievable amount of resources. I hope we can circumvent the waste of
> many of these resources in the future, for I am convinced that we could
> use them more wisely and sustainably.
I also am incredibly impressed with the way the community has
deliberated over this. I don't think it's very likely it could have gone
better, and with more thoughtful conversations all around.
> But I fear that the premature acceptance of GCDs like GCD008 can
> sustainably choke-hold our beloved project, driven by a level of FUD and
> time pressure I am convinced will hurt our mission sustainably. I have
> a hard time consolidating this with my ideas of consent-driven
> collective project management.
We are in the section called deliberation. But how much deliberation is
welcome?
It strikes me suddenly that if one objection could end things here, then
we are never going to make progress, but I'd like to make a reverse
point: I think the consent aspect of this is somewhat backwards. This
was an ambitious GCD in its earlier forms, but was shaped to something
quite tame and quite scoped to ourselves.
But in a sense, when a consensus project starts, it is usually about
doing something new. If one objection could end this consensus process,
and indeed I am not sure what will happen now, my question would be:
what would happen next? Because if the alternative is "this GCD failed,
and thus now it's free-reign to add genAI assisted contributions to
Guix", we have a different consent problem.
I have two thoughts:
- I hope this does not mean the end of this very hard-fought-for,
carefully-debated GCD, which did a lot of work to gain consensus. If
it *is* the end, then let me make the following assertion: should the
Code of Conduct, which I believe has been of great benefit for Guix,
had been up for a GCD debate, there would have been an objection and
it never would have been adopted, which I think would have been a
real loss. So what now?
- If the GCD fails because we do not have complete consensus, then my
assertion is: in order to permit genAI contributions, which are
themselves the big change, that *itself* should have a GCD which gains
consensus.
I do not, personally, give my consensus to continuing to participate in
Guix where this GCD fails and thus the status quo is assumed that we are
at free rein to accept genAI contributions. Is that indeed what we are
looking at? What now?
> That being said, the amount of social pressure to disapprove of such a
> long and hard discussion is almost unbearable. I can imagine others
> preferring not to expose themselves against what could be perceived as
> an overwhelming consensus of a vast majority of GNU Guix. I don't know
> if I am the only one opposing, but the amount of exposure with the
> potential attack-surface ("we had such a great consent except for this
> one turd in the punchbowl") is highly problematic for consent-finding
> processes. Voicing disapproval should be encouraged, otherwise we will
> never be able to truly find the best solutions for all of us, and slowly
> lose valuable participants, that prefer to remain silent than exposing
> themselves, one discussion at a time.
The punchbowl analogy is pretty gross. :\
And we have had lots of time for lots of people to give feedback, and
have.
> The way I learned it, consensus is when you can enthusiastically agree,
> not agreeing because you have been worn down over months, unable to cope
> with the volume of input or paralyzed by fear.
I do not enthusiastically agree with the change of beginning to permit
genAI contributions into Guix, which we have effectively been on
moratorium for now. So leaving that moratorium I think should be its own
consensus process, should this GCD fail.
But I would prefer it not fail. I hope we can bring this GCD to a
positive resolution.
- Christine
