On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 10:04 AM Gabriel Wicki <[email protected]> wrote:
> I can as well just comment on this highly questionable input instead of > replying (and having to repeat myself) to my inbox full of remarks since > yesterday. That being said: I doubt polemics, assumptions of my > positions, exaggerations and dramatizations of the current situations > are helpful or align with the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines. Maybe > we should all glance over that highly helpful document once more? > > I thank you for trying to understand me in advance! > > > # ON WALLS OF TEXTS, POLEMICS AND ISSUES WITH DISSIDENT OPINIONS # > > You can all present yourself as the most consent-conscious people > around, but if you > > - refuse to name the problem(s) you want to solve, > > - do not explore the problem space for all possible solutions, > > - glorify an obviously deficient process, > > - sprinkled with polemics when people voicing dissent > > you are but acting on a brutalized idea of the oh-so-often-cited > consensus finding process you claim to follow. It is just not the real > deal if you omit the most essential half(!). > > > # THE ISSUES WITH GCD008 # > > The major issue I see with GCD008 is that it tried to solve at least the > following (5!) issues, all at once: > > 1. saving the project from dependency on proprietary SaaS, > > 2. saving the source code repositories from infections from > contributions of questionable provenance (wrt copyright), > > 3. glorifying craftspersonship, > > 4. telling the world that we have strong political stances, > > 5. limiting usage of proprietary tools for hacking on or contributing > to Guix > > and probably a bunch more. Time pressure was given by definition of the > GCD process (prolonging of the discussion phase being out of the > question), while the need for action was repeated as if it was an axiom. > > > The first two and IMHO most important points in my eyes **do not need > sudden action**. The former is clearly regulated by the FSDG. The > latter is, if not through the FSDG or another document I may not think > of right now, regulated due to a piece of arcane knowledge, which we act > upon in our day-to-day duties as committers, but I guess we just never > wrote down, though we really should. > > Who volunteers to draft a rough sketch? > > > # RISK ASSESSMENT # > > That being said: not a single person argued in favor of risking to lose > Guix. Have you noticed that? AFAICT We have a very strong consensus > that we should not risk losing this great project or getting into legal > troubles. So, the adequate thing to do is: assess potential risk, > consult experts, then draft and consent on (LLM assisted) contribution > guidelines (or which other measure seems adequate) that seem sensible > and ensure a sustainable collaboration with the partnerships we > currently have and the ecosystem we thrive in. This is what I mean by > exploring the problem space. It is *far more* than just exchanging > opinions, figuring out where the median lies, only to label it > "consensus" in the end and being fine with it. > > GCD008 potentially contradicts the just released Codeberg guidelines. > Are we ready to hop to the next host? I very much doubt that. > > Had we known about these discussions (and the outcome) I may not have > been the only one disapproving. So, I guess we need "ambassadors" of a > kind to guarantee at least a minimal, bidirectional flow of information > for relevant discussions in our dependent/related/neighboring projects. > Who volunteers? > > > # REGULATING PERSONAL COMPUTER USAGE # > > It is true, we currently do not have a policy on LLM usage. But > regulating the personal computing usage of our contributors and project > members is against the GNU Kind Communications Guidelines and IMO > Freedom 0. Do we overthrow these pillars of our community for a > "strong, political stance" against BigCorp? Or do we just expect people > to remain silent about their computing setups because they are not as > cool as the very verbal HACKERPERSON™ majority? I am convinced this is > not inviting for newcomers and just hides the fact that we are all far > from perfect. Such cultish attitudes contradict egalitarian, > collective, consent-driven movement essentially. > > > # PLEASE STOP WASTING RESOURCES # > > GCD008 should have been withdrawn even before it was started. It was > obvious from the volume and emotional load in the precursory discussion > that we were *FAR* from being able to collectively rationalize on *what > we were doing* and how to get to ideal solutions. > > I don't understand why we had to continue for 3 months repeating that we > /must regulate asap/ and that we are endangered if we did not. I > believe that having our principal developer expose themselves to this > daunting and rather ungrateful task instead of maybe holding a wider > view of project milestones, looking out for (other) grave deficiencies > or enabling others to fill in many of their (former) positions and > duties by writing down all these missing pieces of arcane knowledge, > thus enabling others to take up the necessary work, is a problem we > better not repeat. This only hurts our project. > > I hope we learn and use this lesson in the future. > > > > I urge you, Dave, and all who seemingly feel such a drastic need to > police, to at least define the terms you want to regulate, describe the > problems you ought to solve, open the space and invite people, consult > experts (or at least lawyers) to find these `win-win` solutions we need > instead of repeatedly exchange insurmountable walls of text only to land > on a perceived median of opinions just so the "consent" label can be > slapped onto it. But I am already (and again) repeating myself. > > Please excuse, I am sorry. > > > # WHAT IS THIS EVEN ABOUT?!?!? # > > I honestly don't even know what we are fighting over. Is it me who has > issues with the process you guys blindly glorify? Or is it you having > issues with me taking part in this very process (but just having the > *wrong* opinion)? Are we saving Guix from BigCorp? Or from a rabies > infected GNU? > > I am convinced we have an extremely broad consensus about all that LLM > jazz. We don't want to take risks for the project, we can't rely on > proprietary software for our infrastructure, we can't advocate for such > things, etc. > > > Please, y'all, take the time to let this settle a bit, focus on what > *actually needs to be done* so this remains a project where we all > thrive and empower each other, figure out ways so we can actually find > consensus on these issues instead of this infighting. I hope you all > realize we are on the same team, fighting the same struggle in and for > the same project, having the same ideals and usually coming to very > similar conclusions. > > Let's not have unproven and unfit processes getting in our way to > thrive! > > > I hope you are all doing fine and wish you all a splendid week! > gabriel / gabber > Can we keep this discussion focused on the content of the GCD 009 document? Thanks, - Dave
