Hi Andreas and Gabriel, ter 28 jul 2026 às 23:59:03 (1785293943), [email protected] enviou: > > The problem is that technically, after the rejection of GCD 008 we have > agreed on nothing; even people who supported the compromise lined out > in the document are not bound by it now. So essentially we need to start > from scratch (where of course the final form of GCD 008, the discussions > we have had, or a completely different proposal such as GCD 009 can be > the basis of a new discussion). >
I object to this interpretation of our current situation. We have built a broad and strong consensus on the final GCD-8 terms, this is not nothing. Even if withdrawn, after all the discussions and the deliberation results which gathered a strong support overall, I don't think it is sensible to say we are back to square one where there's uncertainty with regards to what is acceptable on the genAI front. On the contrary, we now have a document which states in a clear fashion what is acceptable and the route to take in order to avoid throwing shit at the fan. If someone were to propose a PR or directly commit some large/complex genAI output or to use a bot to interact with the project they wouldn't be able to convincingly claim to have done it in good faith. To take the route of "whatever is not forbidden is permissible" would be a bad faith legalistic approach that is bound to have very negative social repercussions for the one doing it. What we are lacking is the formal approval in order to proceed with blog posts, documentation and policy file. All of these are important going forward and also in relation to new commers, but currently we don't need a moratorium any more since we have this consensus and the only disapproval was not grounded on wanting a more strict ban. > > So assuming from what you wrote that the current non-regulation is not > your desired state of affairs, as Noé I am waiting for you to draft GCD 010 > with a proposal that could form a compromise based on what you consider > we agree on. > Thus, instead of asking Gabriel to write a new proposal and conducting rehashed debates (with the animosity higher this time), I think the sensible route to take is to ask them for concrete propositions on top of what we already agreed on. This is also what's in the consensus flowchart[1]. So Gabriel, with that in mind, would you care for proposing concrete changes to the current GCD-8 text that would make it acceptable to you so we can put your proposed changes up for deliberation? How much time do you need to think them through? Also, do notice that if your disagreement is fundamental in such a way that it can't be reconciled with the current community consensus, the adequate route to take is either submit and live with it or take your leave from the project. Blocking indefinetely and trying to hold everyone else hostage are not acceptable outcomes. This is also stated on the Agreement and Disagreement section of the shortconsensus[2]. To make it very clear: I do not want you to take your leave. My hope is that you can reconcile your differences and make a proposition that resolves the current blockage for us all. Cheers, 1. https://seedsforchange.org.uk/downloads/consflow.pdf 2. https://seedsforchange.org.uk/shortconsensus
