Andreas Enge <[email protected]> writes: > Hello, > > I have gone through your short arguments again: > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2026 at 04:03:28PM +0200, Gabriel Wicki wrote: >> 1. From the project perspective: Discussions continued way into the >> deliberation period: the proposal could use some more time to (at least) >> smooth the rough edges. >> 2. Consent-wise: Time-pressure and an overwhelming amount of FUD grossly >> contradict my understanding of consent. >> 3. From a community perspective: I don't think it is appropriate to >> craft contribution guidelines as a by-product of the LLM discussion. >> 4. Quality of the document: It is still rather unclear in a few areas. >> 5. Technically: The (please excuse the potentially wrong label) >> "Luddite" angle ("these tools hurt real craftspersonship") seems to be >> historically wrong, in a way that is ignorant in how progress works in >> the tech world. > > I find it remarkable that none of them (except maybe 4) is on the *content* > of the final document. Disapproval within the deliberation period is > meant to convey that you cannot live with the outcome of the process. > To quote GCD 001: > "“I disapprove”, meaning that one opposes the implementation of the > proposal." > > Instead you mainly state that you do not like the process itself (lack > of time; which actually contradicts your other claim that the process > was long and took many resources); or the mixture or non-mixture of > topics in the same GCD (3, which does not say whether you actually > disagree with what is written in the document); or the framing of the > text ("luddite"). And concerning 4, "rather unclear in a few areas" > does speak about the document, but does not look like a strong argument > that you cannot live with the outcome, also given that there were weeks > during which concrete proposals for clarifications and changes of > framing have been made and implemented; and that without the GCD, the > situation is more than "rather unclear". > > With such a fundamental opposition to the process itself, it is clear > we will not be able to pass any but the most uncontroversial decisions. > The argument "the process could use some more time" is such a blanket one > that it could be used for each and every GCD. I do not know whether this > was your goal from the start; but I feel like you have effectively > collapsed the only decision structure we have as a project. > > Andreas
For whatever it's worth, I think this is the most important message that anyone has sent on this mailing list or on the Codeberg PR for the last several days. The fact of the matter is that GCD 008 was a massive success in terms of consensus building. The fact that the one disapproval pointed at the structure of the GCD debate process and that every other vote was either in support of or in acceptance of the GCD 008 *contents* tells me three things: - GCD 008 was a massive success in consensus-building. - However, the "consensus process" in GCD 008 failed. - And the fact that the consensus process in GCD 008 failed in such a *meta way* indicates that we are in real trouble indeed. As Andreas said, the particular objections that tanked the GCD could have been used with any GCD at all. And thus, effectively, we have no consensus gathering mechanism anymore.
