Hi Guix Maintainers,
The context of my query is:
https://codeberg.org/guix/guix/issues/11154
i.e., commit 12eb77825e. This specific case isn’t one issue because
it’s one line change. And the case had been resolved in the bug
tracker. Still, a point remains open.
The important question: What do we do with such kind of submission?
The final version of GCD 008 was an attempt to clarify the answer of
this question. As you know, the status of GCD 008 is “withdrawn”. Far
from me the willing to rehash here GCD 008 and/or the process itself
(GCD 001).
While waiting some of us tackle the identified flaws of GCD 001
– already a work in progress to my knowledge – and relaunch another GCD
about LLM, we as a community need some rules in the meantime about the
contributions using LLM.
We cannot wait another GCD and stay in this unclear situation. Why?
Because it harms the community. For what my feelings are worth, these
days the atmosphere sometimes appears to me dry and does not look as the
warm environment I usually enjoy when contributing to Guix.
We do not have many documents about your role or duties as Guix
Maintainers. The one I’m aware is:
https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/gnu-guix-maintainer-collective-expands/
Therefore, I’m asking you to fulfill your duty:
3. Making decisions, about code or anything, when consensus
cannot be reached. We’ve probably never encountered such a
situation before, though!
And that’s maybe the first time but here we are.
For these temporary rules (kind of policy) waiting a proper GCD, you
have more or less four options, IMHO:
a. Do not fulfill one of your 3 duties.
b. Make “Policy for Contributing” from GCD 008 these temporary rules.
https://codeberg.org/guix/guix-consensus-documents/src/commit/16a79023090b2837ca8bf6a8059262f29c3bc4d0/008-genai.md#policy-for-contributions
c. Let each team decides their own policy.
d. Propose your own set of rules.
For what my personal opinion is worth, the most adequate considering the
situation appear to me to temporary apply (b) as (3).
Please, provide a clarification about what you think.
Cheers,
simon
