The patch author, while claiming LLM discussions are (implied "hidden") in "internal mailing lists", didn't link to the "constructive and collaborative" convers

The patch author, while claiming LLM discussions are (implied "hidden") in "internal mailing lists", didn't link to the "constructive and collaborative" conversation that indeed occurred (publicly). That seems a sort of dishonesty itself. https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-06/msg00515.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-06/msg00... In a different thread about a different LLM-generated package, here's RMS himself: > • As a disclaimer it was generated with LLM. I think ELPA has a > • prudent policy to not allow this for now until there is legal > • clarify, but does this apply to nonGNU-ELPA also? RMS: It does apply, for the time being. It is not a final decision, it is tentative. (link: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-05/msg00206.html https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2026-05/msg00...) GNU (and/or the Emacs project in particular) does not seem to be acting in ludditic or reactionary ways, but thoughtful ones.