Hi, 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. > > Let me elaborate. The GCD 001 states (EMPHASIS mine): > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > Once the final version is published, team members have 14 days to send one > of the following replies on the patch-tracking entry of the GCD: > > [..] > - “I disapprove”, meaning that one opposes the implementation of the > proposal. A team member sending this reply SHOULD HAVE MADE CONSTRUCTIVE > COMMENTs during the discussion period. > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > For the (single!) disapprove vote to be deemed valid, that team member > should have made constructive commentS. Note the plural. I found none. > Please correct me if I'm wrong. I did find (a couple of) requests to > provide usable input. Those were left unanswered.
I strongly oppose disregarding the disapproval, especially because Gabriel made clear comments as to what he would like to be changed about GCD008. Thus, even if you might personally find his comments unconstructive, they are definitely not obviously and uncontroversially so. Furthermore, this rule does not state that the disapproval is to be deemed invalid if it was not preceded by constructive comments, nor does it state who ought to judge whether a given team members comments were constructive. This might be a shortcoming in the GCD process (heck, maybe "near-consensus" might be good enough), but if so, that should be addressed by a GCD updating GCD 001, rather than arbitrarily dismissing Gabriel's disapproval. Since Gabriel has outlined a few actionable issues, I propose going through the GCD process once more, building on the GCD 008 text, taking into account those issues. Furthermore, since there *does* appear to be near-universal consensus, I propose formalising the current de-facto moratorium as something along the lines of "until a GCD determines exact rules, all LLM contributions are banned". > To put this in perspective: Many, many, in fact an unprecedented > (overwhelming?) amount of constructive, thoughtful comments were made > and patches were provided by team members who (initially) strongly > opposed this GCD, seeking and actually working towards, consensus. Yeah, I am overall quite impressed with the entire process, just a bummer that it had to end with a whimper, let's hope the end result will be an even better GCD. > Please carefully [re-]consider the consequences of accepting a veto. The consequences will be what we make of them. Kind regards, pinoaffe
