On 5/5/25 01:58, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 09:24:45PM -0500, Steven Robbins wrote:
More information can be found at:
https://www.debian.org/vote/2025/vote_002
I guess this is still in "discussion period"? When does that period
end and
the vote begin?
That's described in
https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution.en.html#item-A (mostly in A.1). There is no single numeric answer, but the minimum period is 2 weeks.
"The minimum discussion period is 2 weeks. The maximum discussion period
is 3 weeks."
This is surprising to me. Does that mean we must start to vote when we
reach the
maximum discussion period? I just thought I can go back and reply to the detailed
issues in the threads after getting through the time trap of paper
submission deadline.
It is too rush to start to vote for this within 3 weeks as I'm
completely not available for
involving into discussions. At least I'd like to see potential voters to
be well informed, as
the current status is the number of questions is much greater than answers. Missing a formal "Proposal B" is also an indicator for such situation.
I have belief in my proposal. But now it seems the time needed to
justify the design
details of proposal A is longer than the GR process. For example,
proposal A has
explicitly defined the scope to one single (and most problematic) case
to stay at
maximum simplicity. By proposing "XXX is not DFSG-compliant" can
directly avoid
the trap of "defining what is free software AI within a single GR". That problem is
far beyond the capacity that a GR can handle.
OSI has spent years on this issue (while I started mentioning this much earlier), and
yet they converged into a controvertial definition. I have been arguing
on the training
data issue at the very beginning of OSI's working group on OSAID and my argument is continuously being ignored. Eventually I no longer bother to
argue. I know
what I'm doing as a person who simultaneously speaks from @debian.org
and trains
neural networks (both small ones and large ones) every single day.And
now what I
mentioned at the very begining of OSAID is exactly the most
controvertial point of
OSAID after its release.
Given the trajectory of OSI's attempt about this, I would like emphasize
the proposal
A is in my opinion the most problematic and the most vote-able point.
Trying to explicitly
expand the definition of "DFSG-compliant AI" will result in the
expansion of countless
troubles and mess up the scope of the GR. Thus, to make the GR proposal practical,
it only says "what is NOT" instead of "what IS".
As I mentioned in Appendix D "Independence Utopia". It makes me
uncomfortable
to define "DFSG-compliant AI" before I can really create such a thing
with my limited
resource for FOSS actitvity.
https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/gr-ai-dfsg/-/blob/main/AppendixD.txt
I think people in the FOSS community understands what simplicity means.
Even if we are forced to vote after extension, I'm still very confident
in proposal A.
It's just a pity that I cannot involve in discussion for my poor bandwidth.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)