Ihor Radchenko <[email protected]> writes: > I am really tempted to ask "do you want to talk about this?" > Seriously, it is concerning to get less contributions because of LLMs.
I haven't participated in any Org meetups so far (I only appeared in one a long time ago), so I'm not really in a position to comment, but making room for the larger topics of *contribution incentives* would certainly be useful, especially now that IAg modifies these incentives. I think the topic will come up, either directly or indirectly, during the Emacs conference - I hope the local discussion on Org can contribute to the broader discussion among all Emacs developers. When I stepped down, I insisted on three pieces of maintenance advice (https://bzg.fr/en/notes/org-has-a-new-maintainer/): 1. Maintaining Org Mode is about *taking care of users 2. Be liberal in what you accept and strict in what you give out 3. It's all about learning! It's interesting to see how each one may be affected by IAg: 1. Because Org's communication happens on a mailing list, it is still between humans. No 100%-IAg-generated issues and PR. Some people may be helped by code assistants for patches or for bug tracking, but the mailing list is still a place where we can look after each other. 2. The "Postel law" of code and communication has never been more relevant. This is because the threshold for contributing is perhaps a little lower, which means that more responsibility falls to current maintainers — and this is where we all need to be careful. Ideally, every contributor would follow this Postel law, not just maintainers. 3. The emphasis on "collective learning" is also relevant: I think every contributor here is learning, even if some of that learning happens locally (such as reading documentation or discussing with a code assistant.) I see current maintainers and contributors spending a lot of time educating each other, which is really nice. I feel like the Org community and its development are in quite good shape - but I also understand Rudolf fatigue, and we certainly *need* to discuss this. 2 cts, -- Bastien
