@ArneBab uh, what is going on in the emacs mailing lists rn? (asking you bc i see your name showing up there, and it's just way too much text for me to parse through)

like i know:
1. there is some discussion going on on LLM use policy within emacs (if i'm not mistaken, emacs, as a GNU project, officially follows some version of the "we don't know about the copyright status of LLM-generated code, let's hold off on anything but non-copyrightable snippets for now", which isn't the complete ban i'd prefer, but is still infinitely morally superiour to anything that is coming out of the tech industry rn)

2. there is a snippet from, as i understand, the emacs co-maintainer going around, that effectively says emacs would accept contributions derived from slave labour; from the surrounding context clues, it seems like hyperbole in response to a similarly hyperbolic hypothetical; but it's still extremely disturbing to read from a co-maintainer, no less, hyperbole or not. like, can we maybe get an apology+retraction out of this guy? i would really prefer this not snowballing into another giant controversy because a bunch of people in FOSS leadership have 0 social and conflict management skills, again.

(note: the better argument for his position would have been that LLM use and slavery aren't morally equivalent. but the flipside of that is, him endorsing (even hypothetical) slavery is also *so much worse* than any endorsement of LLM use he could have made)

how do other people in the projects stand on this? i know emacs is super important to rms specifically, any idea what his response might be to being asked about the slavery thing specifically?

idk, i would like to see some actual deescalation for once.