Antonio Terceiro dijo [Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 07:41:26AM -0300]:
[thanks to Kurt for keeping up with this]
Thanks indeed!
On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 08:04:21AM +0800, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
We currently have 7 options on the website and NoTA, so 8 on the
ballot. There are 2 other recent options with some seconds, possibly
creating 10 options.
This is ridiculous, and means that even people who actually agree are
talking past each other. There are only 2 options: we either a) ban
LLM-assisted contributions completely, or b) tolerate LLM-assisted
contributions under a set of constraints.
Seconded.
I understand that Condorcet voting is supposed to be robust in the face
of multiple options, but I cannot wrap my mind around having 10
different options for this issue, because that's a fantasy, product of
our individualist decision-making method. "Oh look, this is mostly what
I think, but is missing a few bits here and there. I will make my own
then".
We are in the eye of the tornado and won't be able or redefine our
process here and now, so I don't expect to influence the current vote.
But we would need a process by which we can identify clear, distinct
directions for votes, and have the texts to be voted on built
collectively, to avoid this insanity.
Fully seconded. Thanks for bringing this up, Terceiro! Sadly I cannot
right now sign my mail and give poor, dear Kurt more work trying to
work out whether your text is a valid option for the vote¹, so I'll
just joke at the possibility. And hope this will be over soon, as it's
becoming too much, and too self-entangled.
¹ https://gwolf.org/2026/08/file-recovery-in-process.html
