#codeberg theory: no #LLM projects.
Practice: your non-LLM experiments will likely not get booted (but may still).
> So while the following use cases are discouraged (similar to private repositories), they are likely to be tolerated in practice:
> Side projects and experiments with little resource usage
> Specific tools and custom scripts that would be unlikely to find a community anyway, even if they were not LLM-generated
https://blog.codeberg.org/protecting-our-floss-commons-from-llms.html
Thank goodness that's only an informal guideline, but when it goes into the formal rules, I'm out.
https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/commit/96fac426a32d1ba91ff879366d59bf1af54080c2
@dcz Out to beat getting pushed out or out because @Codeberg will push you out? The way it's written, I anticipate my 'lone dev and no user' repositories would get the boot, but I've already got local backups. I've only put them out there for any other interested parties, and if they don't materialize, then the whole issue doesn't matter.
I value Codeberg's independence, and I agree with their LLM stance.
@dcz users who care enough about decisions can become members and take part in discussions and decisions. there where discussions about this topic since at least may
how would you want users more included?
i agree that users should have time to understand and decide how to act after a decision was made. 30 days seems reasonable
cc @Codeberg
@davidak @Codeberg @lwriemen While the option of becoming a member is a good step, I got an impression that there were people who cared who didn't even know there was a vote. Perhaps more communication. Perhaps making every user a member. There's loads of shapes of governance to choose from, but I'm not an expert.
@lwriemen Out because I like to switch providers on my own schedule, rather than someone else creating an emergency for me to clean up.
Codeberg seems to me a bit unreliable considering the way they made the rule change. Not so suitable to make my new home. I'm very sad about it.