Tom, your latest reply helped me understand something I hadn’t appreciated before. When I wrote “otherwise acceptable workflows,” you replied that this is exactly the point under discussion.
"Otherwise acceptable" is, of course, the point of discussion here.
Does that mean that, in your view, LLM-assisted authorship is *not* an otherwise acceptable workflow, even when the contributor satisfies all of the policy’s requirements around disclosure, understanding, responsibility, and quality? If so, I think I finally understand why we have been talking past each other. In that case, the disclosure requirement is no longer merely about provenance; it identifies contributions produced by a workflow that the project itself does not regard as fully acceptable. Best, Moritz On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 6:31 AM <amindfv@mailbox.org> wrote:
Moritz, your LLM-generated table and bullet points are almost an exact rephrase of your previous email's points about Windows vs. Linux. Let's try to "disagree agreeably." I don't think it's helpful for me to rephrase my responses as well.
On 07/25/2026 1:38 PM CEST Moritz Angermann <moritz.angermann@gmail.com> wrote:
At that point we are no longer talking about provenance. We are expressing an institutional preference between otherwise acceptable workflows.
"Otherwise acceptable" is, of course, the point of discussion here.
If you believe the analogy fails, I would genuinely appreciate it if you could point out where this structural correspondence breaks down. I suspect that would help me understand your position much better.
If you search this email thread for the word "emacs," you can find other people explaining why they find the analogy unhelpful. To one person's response you wrote "Here we disagree; but this would likely end up splitting hairs [...] and I have no interest in debating that." So let's agree to disagree!
Thanks, Tom