Hi Janneke and bjc,

sex 31 jul 2026 às 08:22:26 (1785496946), [email protected] enviou:
> Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <[email protected]> writes:
> 
> > Thanks for counting!  After close and thoughtful inspection, I have
> > reached a different conclusion.  As a sponsor of this GCD 008 I feel
> > called upon to propose this correction:
> >
> >      - 45 support (codeberg + email)
> >      - 5 accept (email)
> >      - 0 valid disapproves
> >      - 1 invalid*) disapprove (email)
> >
> >      *) Reason for invalidation: no constructive comments were made
> >         by this team member.
> 
> i find it deeply uncomfortable to invalidate someone's position based on
> my, or anyone else's perspective, our inner lives are complex and we
> have limited view into it. consensus requires trust of every
> participant, and there's no way around that. we have to believe gabber
> when they say they disapprove, even if the reasons why haven't been
> communicated to our satisfaction.
> 

IMO, we are in between two dangerous paths:

The first is to throw minority right of disapproval under the bus
when it's mostly needed.  Notice that this right is a stepping stone
of the consensus process, so invalidating someones disapproval
should be a last resort measure in a truly exceptional situation.
Otherwise the consensus process itself would be thrown away.

OTOH, if we take the route of assuming trust and good faith of
everyone regardless of any evidence to the contrary and accepting
arbitrary disapprovals from people who don't show any sign of trying
to build consensus, then we are opening our community to be abused
at will.  We welcome new team members without much fuzz, so anyone
willing to disturb guix has a clear easy path to do so.

Christine's comment on the evil bit rfc comes to mind.  Someone
willing to abuse the community will not put a disclaimer that
they are doing it, they will mask it as legitimate traffic.

Gabriel said that they would reconsider if the term genAI is
defined.  Let's see if they try to build consensus on that or if
they keep trying to sidestep the consensus process to have their
way.

To me (and I believe to others as well), it's become clear their
abuse of the process.

Reply via email to