Hey Guus,
I very much agree that there doesn't seem to be consensus on what to do
really but I would argue that there is consensus we should do
"something". This is not ready for any Board consideration as you said.
That said I do not think that consensus will "naturally" come up if we
talk about this long enough (see MIX/MUC, SIMS/SFS, twitter/X, CoC
discussion etc.). What is needed is a well defined way with help of
facilitation to actually reach a consensus. Note that I have offered
before a decision making way other than "wait for consensus to appear by
itself" to XSF members privately but I never heard back so I'm
mentioning it here to be on record.
MSavoritias
On 5/12/26 21:24, Guus der Kinderen wrote:
Hi Goffi,
Thanks for raising this topic. It is one that interests a lot of
people - the quick responses to your initial message show that, too.
As for bringing this before Board: I think the discussion so far shows
there is far from consensus on whether the current IPR policy
sufficiently addresses AI-assisted contributions, or whether
additional policy/guidance/disclosure requirements/procedural changes
are needed: Some participants argue the existing policy is already
sufficient, while others believe AI-generated material introduces
significant risks that are not adequately addressed today.
Given that, my suggestion would be to continue the mailing list
discussion a bit longer to clarify concrete problem statements and
possible outcomes. That way, the Board can benefit from the technical
and legal perspectives being surfaced here. I believe this will reduce
the risk of prematurely forcing a decision, before the tradeoffs are
better articulated.
I'm particularly interested in the formulation of concrete, actionable
proposals. I think that is where the real challenge lies, especially
given that there appears to be agreement on the following points:
* The legal situation is jurisdiction-dependent and evolving.
* Enforcement of any strict prohibition would be difficult in practice.
Once the discussion produces a clearer set of possible approaches, I
think it would make sense to bring those to Board for consideration.
Kind regards,
Guus
On Tue, May 12, 2026 at 7:50 PM Goffi <[email protected]> wrote:
Should this matter be on the board agenda? Do we want to discuss
it more here first? Thanks
Le 11 mai 2026 09:50:19 GMT+02:00, Goffi <[email protected]> a écrit :
Hello everybody, I would like to bring a discussion on AI
policy. We can't really ignore anymore that modern models have
become very capable, and I suspect that they are used for spec
authoring. This raises, I believe, copyright issues: if
someone use AI to redact a whole section of a spec, how can we
be sure that it's not an existing specs for some other place,
possibly under copyright, that is copied or paraphrased? How
can an author guarantee that it's original work (hint: they
can't)? I think that there are 3 distinct uses: 1. As a light
formatting/checking help, for instance to generate a table
from a human written section, to correct the formulation of a
sentence, or to draft an example. This is notably useful for
non native English speakers. 2. As a help to search existing
state of art on some feature, or any kind of data, without
writing anything in a protoXEP. 3. As a way to generate whole
sections. Instinctively, and If we put aside ethical and
ecological concerns about LLMs, I think that 1. and 2. are OK,
and 3. should be forbidden. And in all cases, it should be
disclosed. I would like your feedback on this matter, in
particular people with legal knowledge. I would like to avoid
a flamewar, I know that this topic is sensitive and there
opinions are highly divided, please express your opinion
calmly. The fact is, we can't ignore this anymore. Should this
be discussed with board or council? Thanks. Best, Goffi
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
