Andreas Enge <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
my impression was that we were holding back since before ludo even started writing the gcd, naturally assuming one would eventually be written. i know there was a lot of talk about it before hand, at least. that's my impression of the status quo: hold off until we have consensus. > 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. honestly, this sentence is weird and i cannot figure out a logical way to parse it: you can't revert the lack of a thing that never existed. reversion requires a previous action to be undone. there has been no action, there can be no reversion. -bjc
