On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 02:44:51PM +0900, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > understanding of where we stand to iterate on the next GCD, or what I > think would be simpler and work better, propose very short and concise > new LLM-related guidelines to include into our user manual via a patch > (PR)
I beg to differ. Once we have deemed the LLM issue sufficiently important and controversial to warrant a GCD, I would argue that we need another GCD to make a decision. Or to be mildly polemic (I am not insinuating that this is what has happened in this case): It is not an acceptable strategy to torpedo what could be a broad consensus in a GCD by a disapproval, only to then enshrine one's favourite outcome into a pull request. Someone disapproving a GCD either has to live with the status quo (which they may indeed prefer, although in this particular case this means no regulation), or work towards a new consensus. Andreas
