things this post does:1.
-
@dzwiedziu @Yuvalne As a KDE user since 0.98, as a OpenStreetMap contributor since 2013, as a developer who does not like LLM, I care.
But I also understood how OSS projects works and I understood that LLM is and will be there. And it is only on developers how they set rules. Unfortunately constructive discussion was ruined by several aggressive people
️ And this is not OK. -
@dzwiedziu @Yuvalne As a KDE user since 0.98, as a OpenStreetMap contributor since 2013, as a developer who does not like LLM, I care.
But I also understood how OSS projects works and I understood that LLM is and will be there. And it is only on developers how they set rules. Unfortunately constructive discussion was ruined by several aggressive people
️ And this is not OK.@mkyral
> (…) I understood that LLM is and will be there.https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/07/10/ai-is-here-to-stay-is-it-though-what-do-you-mean-stay/
> And it is only on developers how they set rules.
So the developers don't care about the users (again!)
> Unfortunately constructive discussion was ruined by several aggressive people
️ And this is not OKNo, it is not okay.
But locking the rest of the community out the discussion looks like “not caring”.
There are moderation tools for this, FFS!
-
RE: https://floss.social/@kde/117322549131682125
things this post does:
1. place the blame on the KDE community
2. dismiss kdeforpeople.com as an external pressure group
3. dismiss opinions of non-direct contributors as irrelevantthings this post doesn't do:
1. apologise
2. mention that the person who escalated this shitstorm was a literal nazi
3. call the pro-AI presentation a pressure campaign like it did with kdeforpeople.com
4. make literally any lessons for the future
5. apologise!!i no longer consider #KDE a community project.
@Yuvalne
I imagine you've seen the famous presentation, and haven't formed an opinion merely based on the title? -
RE: https://floss.social/@kde/117322549131682125
things this post does:
1. place the blame on the KDE community
2. dismiss kdeforpeople.com as an external pressure group
3. dismiss opinions of non-direct contributors as irrelevantthings this post doesn't do:
1. apologise
2. mention that the person who escalated this shitstorm was a literal nazi
3. call the pro-AI presentation a pressure campaign like it did with kdeforpeople.com
4. make literally any lessons for the future
5. apologise!!i no longer consider #KDE a community project.
@Yuvalne it seems to be a pattern that Open Source projects "test the water" with this stuff, and then when they don't like the response the responsible parties just go "Fuck the water and everyone in it, this isn't for their benefit anyway"
-
@mkyral
> (…) I understood that LLM is and will be there.https://pivot-to-ai.com/2025/07/10/ai-is-here-to-stay-is-it-though-what-do-you-mean-stay/
> And it is only on developers how they set rules.
So the developers don't care about the users (again!)
> Unfortunately constructive discussion was ruined by several aggressive people
️ And this is not OKNo, it is not okay.
But locking the rest of the community out the discussion looks like “not caring”.
There are moderation tools for this, FFS!
@dzwiedziu @Yuvalne I already mentioned this above…
https://mamutovo.cz/@mkyral/117324801694986398
And also there is a big group of users that did not stepped into discussion yet because they don't care about development process but only if they like the result.
Also sentence:
"So the developers don't care about the users (again!)"
is not true - these users are loud, but definitive does not represent all users. E.g. they don't represent me.
-
@dzwiedziu @Yuvalne I already mentioned this above…
https://mamutovo.cz/@mkyral/117324801694986398
And also there is a big group of users that did not stepped into discussion yet because they don't care about development process but only if they like the result.
Also sentence:
"So the developers don't care about the users (again!)"
is not true - these users are loud, but definitive does not represent all users. E.g. they don't represent me.
@mkyral
Fork a large FOSS project, in THIS economy? \s> And also there is a big group of users that did not stepped into discussion yet because they don't care about development process but only if they like the result.
This is “silent majority” vibes. As in pretending to speak for the users that didn't weigh in.
Because you did a survey with those users, and that's where you got this opinion, so this is the source of your care?
-
@Yuvalne
I imagine you've seen the famous presentation, and haven't formed an opinion merely based on the title?@iinavpov just using Nate's own characterisation of that presentation as "a talk proposing “a lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” [that] had been accepted at Akademy 2026".
if kdeforpeople.com, a mere list of signatures, is "an attempt to [crossed out: brigade] pressure KDE into banning LLMs", how's that presentation as Nate describes it not an attempt to pressure KDE into embracing them?
if the presentation as Nate describes it is not that, how's kdeforpeople.com also not what he calls it? -
@iinavpov just using Nate's own characterisation of that presentation as "a talk proposing “a lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” [that] had been accepted at Akademy 2026".
if kdeforpeople.com, a mere list of signatures, is "an attempt to [crossed out: brigade] pressure KDE into banning LLMs", how's that presentation as Nate describes it not an attempt to pressure KDE into embracing them?
if the presentation as Nate describes it is not that, how's kdeforpeople.com also not what he calls it?@Yuvalne
Nate is clear he hasn't seen the talk. He's clearly tried to gauge how it was received.I actually saw the talk. The title is very much disconnected from the content. I have no information on reception.
It *very much* wasn't pushing LLMs. So as far as pressuring anyone, it was doing a pretty terrible job.
You should go see it: it may make you revisit how trustworthy this or that account of events is.
-
@Yuvalne
Nate is clear he hasn't seen the talk. He's clearly tried to gauge how it was received.I actually saw the talk. The title is very much disconnected from the content. I have no information on reception.
It *very much* wasn't pushing LLMs. So as far as pressuring anyone, it was doing a pretty terrible job.
You should go see it: it may make you revisit how trustworthy this or that account of events is.
@iinavpov so if Nate hasn't seen the talk, why is it fair for him to characterise it as "a talk proposing “a lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” [that] had been accepted at Akademy 2026"? and why is it okay for KDE to repeat that claim by sharing his post as a "first-hand, blow-by-blow account on what went down"?
if Nate hasn't seen the presentation then it's not a "first-hand, blow-by-blow account on what went down", and if he misrepresents it then it's not "a verifiable timeline of events". -
@iinavpov so if Nate hasn't seen the talk, why is it fair for him to characterise it as "a talk proposing “a lovable, sovereign, AI-native KDE” [that] had been accepted at Akademy 2026"? and why is it okay for KDE to repeat that claim by sharing his post as a "first-hand, blow-by-blow account on what went down"?
if Nate hasn't seen the presentation then it's not a "first-hand, blow-by-blow account on what went down", and if he misrepresents it then it's not "a verifiable timeline of events".@iinavpov also, you focusing on the part that worries me the least about the whole thing and specifically asking me again to watch the presentation, which is ireelevant because the post you're replying to is about what Nate's response does and doesn't do, is pretty much a form of sealioning.
so instead of getting distracted i'll ask you directly about the thing that worry me: -
@iinavpov also, you focusing on the part that worries me the least about the whole thing and specifically asking me again to watch the presentation, which is ireelevant because the post you're replying to is about what Nate's response does and doesn't do, is pretty much a form of sealioning.
so instead of getting distracted i'll ask you directly about the thing that worry me:@Yuvalne
I think you got cut.I agree that it's not an account of what happened. It's that account from Nate's (incomplete, probably biased) viewpoint. Which is not the same thing.
-
@iinavpov also, you focusing on the part that worries me the least about the whole thing and specifically asking me again to watch the presentation, which is ireelevant because the post you're replying to is about what Nate's response does and doesn't do, is pretty much a form of sealioning.
so instead of getting distracted i'll ask you directly about the thing that worry me:@iinavpov
- was Nate justified in his characterisation of the Nazi and of the actions done to said Nazi?
- was Nate right to say to characterise members of the community who are not direct contributors as "people mostly outside of KDE"?
- was the KDE project right in not apologising to the various people banned from expressing their worries about Nazis in the community, some if which are to my knowledge still blocked?
- Was Nate right in his only lesson being "avoid creating unnecessary drama"? -
@iinavpov
- was Nate justified in his characterisation of the Nazi and of the actions done to said Nazi?
- was Nate right to say to characterise members of the community who are not direct contributors as "people mostly outside of KDE"?
- was the KDE project right in not apologising to the various people banned from expressing their worries about Nazis in the community, some if which are to my knowledge still blocked?
- Was Nate right in his only lesson being "avoid creating unnecessary drama"?@iinavpov and to ask the three big questions:
- what is to be done with Nazis in the community?
- does the opinion of non-contributor community members (about AI or in general) matter?
- is KDE still a community project?those are the things that worry me. not was or was not said in one presentation, which Nate later mischaracterised yet claimed his description was "verifiable", which KDE repeated as a "first-hand account".
-
@iinavpov and to ask the three big questions:
- what is to be done with Nazis in the community?
- does the opinion of non-contributor community members (about AI or in general) matter?
- is KDE still a community project?those are the things that worry me. not was or was not said in one presentation, which Nate later mischaracterised yet claimed his description was "verifiable", which KDE repeated as a "first-hand account".
@iinavpov and going back to your comment, the "account from Nate's (incomplete, probably biased) viewpoint" just became KDE's response. so it actually matters very little to the future what actually happened, since what i care about is what happens with KDE in the future.
my conclusion from this post is:
- KDE is not a community project, it's a developer project.
- the problem with Nazis in the community is they cause drama.
- same with the AI policy proposal.i hope you see why i'm unhappy.
-
@iinavpov
- was Nate justified in his characterisation of the Nazi and of the actions done to said Nazi?
- was Nate right to say to characterise members of the community who are not direct contributors as "people mostly outside of KDE"?
- was the KDE project right in not apologising to the various people banned from expressing their worries about Nazis in the community, some if which are to my knowledge still blocked?
- Was Nate right in his only lesson being "avoid creating unnecessary drama"?The Nazi was banned for being "unacceptable and people wanting nothing to do with him".
KDE is contributors in a broad sense, always had been. From coders to bug reporters. People who never interacted before with the project in any capacity can fairly be described as "not KDE".
If there is a code of conduct, and it's enforced selectively, is it a code of conduct? If I stab a Nazi, I may have done the morally right, I'm still going to jail.
On the lessons, that's not what I read.
-
@iinavpov and going back to your comment, the "account from Nate's (incomplete, probably biased) viewpoint" just became KDE's response. so it actually matters very little to the future what actually happened, since what i care about is what happens with KDE in the future.
my conclusion from this post is:
- KDE is not a community project, it's a developer project.
- the problem with Nazis in the community is they cause drama.
- same with the AI policy proposal.i hope you see why i'm unhappy.
@iinavpov
going back to the three big questions, the answers seem to be:
- ban them if they're called out, but also the person who called them out if they violate procedure, and shame that person
- no
- also no. -
@iinavpov and going back to your comment, the "account from Nate's (incomplete, probably biased) viewpoint" just became KDE's response. so it actually matters very little to the future what actually happened, since what i care about is what happens with KDE in the future.
my conclusion from this post is:
- KDE is not a community project, it's a developer project.
- the problem with Nazis in the community is they cause drama.
- same with the AI policy proposal.i hope you see why i'm unhappy.
@Yuvalne
All open source projects are contributor (not developer!) projects. Sorry.I emphatically disagree that the only problem with Nazis is drama, and I did *not* get that from the text.
I understand you think that the only AI policy acceptable is "it's forbidden". The current policy is "it's allowed". The revised policy looks like it's aiming for "it's restricted".
I don't like LLMs and refuse to use them. I also feel no right at all to forbid their usage to anyone.
-
The Nazi was banned for being "unacceptable and people wanting nothing to do with him".
KDE is contributors in a broad sense, always had been. From coders to bug reporters. People who never interacted before with the project in any capacity can fairly be described as "not KDE".
If there is a code of conduct, and it's enforced selectively, is it a code of conduct? If I stab a Nazi, I may have done the morally right, I'm still going to jail.
On the lessons, that's not what I read.
@iinavpov
> People who never interacted before with the project in any capacity can fairly be described as "not KDE"and how exactly did you or Nate reach the conclusion that the person who revealed the Nazi or the people at kdeforpeople.com are "people who never interacted before with the project in any capacity"? what exactly makes you characterise any of them as such?
do you know that the person who created the petition is "someone outside KDE", or do you just trust Nate? -
@Yuvalne
All open source projects are contributor (not developer!) projects. Sorry.I emphatically disagree that the only problem with Nazis is drama, and I did *not* get that from the text.
I understand you think that the only AI policy acceptable is "it's forbidden". The current policy is "it's allowed". The revised policy looks like it's aiming for "it's restricted".
I don't like LLMs and refuse to use them. I also feel no right at all to forbid their usage to anyone.
@iinavpov
if you're unable to think of one other criticism of the AI policy (and crucially, about the process surrounding it) other than "it's not forbidding it altogether" then you are part of the problem
but let me help you a little bit:
why does the opinion of community members as expressed via kdeforpeople.com not taken into account? why does it not count, why is it not even worthy if a refutal?
is KDE a community project? does the community have input in shaping the project's AI policy? -
@iinavpov
> People who never interacted before with the project in any capacity can fairly be described as "not KDE"and how exactly did you or Nate reach the conclusion that the person who revealed the Nazi or the people at kdeforpeople.com are "people who never interacted before with the project in any capacity"? what exactly makes you characterise any of them as such?
do you know that the person who created the petition is "someone outside KDE", or do you just trust Nate?@Yuvalne
I know of neither. I just think you assume that pure users are KDE, and I think they aren't.I read from Nate that neither does he. I also trust that if he knew the contributors behind the website he'd have said so (because otherwise the drama would be horrible).
