Morning, Gabriel Wicki <[email protected]> writes:
>> 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? > I really don't like to repeat myself, but ok, one last time: if *at > least* the terms "genAI" and "LLM" (you know, the very essence of all of > this) were defined in a way that our future selves, but more importantly > people who did not take part in this nerve-wrecking roller-coaster of > emotions, could deduct *what is actually meant* instead of having to > guess or just misinterpreting I would reconsider. Be aware: language > evolves, terms change meanings. What we call AI today is not the same > as 10 years ago and will not be the same using that label in a decade or > two. This sounds like your only objection is a matter of naming. Unless you forgot to add something else, I find it quite unfortunate that this was something that could not have been corrected during the discussion period. Although I didn't participate much in the discussion, I've been following it. It strikes me that there have been multiple blanc checks where the author was willing to compromise, to the point of asking you specifically[1]: "Could you propose a different wording, if you think it’s unclear?" For which you responded: "I'm afraid I can't atm." Which is fine, *atm*, but what is not fine is to only find time for criticism without finding time for constructive proposals. At the very least, at some point during the discussion period, I would have hopped that you would have found time for following up when your input was requested. Would you mind explaining where the process failed in such a way that prevented you from finding time for following up on the requests for input that you received? [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2026-06/msg00257.html Best regards, -- Sergio
