On 8/13/26 15:26, Sergio Pastor Pérez wrote:
Hello!
Vagrant Cascadian <[email protected]> writes:
I think this is a great idea. I believe this could reduce the
frustration from an "unexpected" outcome. For example, a requisite for
"disapproving" (rejecting?) could be to have 1 standing issue/pull
request which has not been closed.
There is also a problem at the start of the GCD process that makes
creating such issues/PRs difficult.
GCD008 started from a very extreme position (compared to similar
documents in other projects), and as a result it feels we got into a
'local maximum' that the GCD process couldn't get us out of.
The final GCD falls short in both directions: it allows plenty of LLM
use that I consider harmful, while it also disallows plenty of LLM use
without proper justification.
It would have been easier to reach consensus the authors and sponsors of
the GCD would represent a wider range of opinions and ideas to begin with.
My improvement suggestion would be to have smaller discussions before
submitting a GCD to ensure that a broader group of people feel
represented already in the initial proposal.
Note that I believe this process could also lead to a more strict LLM
policy, because it would create a less hostile environment that would
let us figure out what we actually care about. I believe we are all
pretty close in our views actually.
At times the discussion felt more like 'trench warfare' than consensus
finding. I feel we were mostly talking past each other, not
understanding each others viewpoints. I still don't think there is
enough mutual understanding. Consensus is hard to reach without
understanding.
I find the result quite unsatisfactory, and agree with Gabber's analysis.
The asymmetry of the GCD process works both ways: even a single
disapproval represents multiple people that share the sentiment. (Also
in GCD 007; I don't know about the others.)
There are plenty of points we didn't even get to discuss. But the
points we did manage to discuss already cost so much energy. I think we
can, and should, do so much better on such an important policy.
Hugo
