On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 08:41:49AM -0400, bjc wrote: > is that what the status quo is? because up until now, afaik, we were in > a holding pattern where llm-involved contributions were not being > accepted. > of course, none of this has been stated outright, and the gcd was > hopefully going to specify a direction.
Exactly. We were in a de facto holding pattern, but which was not codified. It depended on individual committers who may or may not have pushed LLM authored commits (I did once, but we agreed to revert it). Actually there was not even a requirement to mention whether a commit was LLM authored; we may already have pushed a fair number of them without noticing. But people also held back because they were waiting for the outcome of the GCD. The GCD itself mentions this: "## Cost of Reverting A new GCD could propose a different set of commitments, a different policy, or abandoning both altogether; should consensus be found on such a proposal, it would override the decisions of this GCD. What would be costly to revert is the *lack* of any form of regulation on genAI use in Guix." So the text in the GCD starts from the assumption that the status quo is "lack of any form of regulation". Someone who has disapproved the GCD must have been aware of this interpretation. Andreas
