Re: We should require AI disclosure

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]