Re: LLMs and Agents usage in the CCG

One could argue that using spelling and grammar correction tools to ensure
comments are well-formed shows respect for list members. Similarly, it
could be argued that one show's respect for others by having an LLM review
comments, at least lengthy ones, to ensure that they are well-formed,
internally consistent, etc.

bob wyman


On Wed, Apr 8, 2026 at 11:25 AM Mahmoud Alkhraishi <mahmoud@mavennet.com>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> The last few weeks have brought up several issues around the usage of LLMs
> and Agents and as chairs we wanted to facilitate discussions. We currently
> have a rule that blocks bots on the mailing list. This will not be changing.
>
> We will adhere to the W3C rules on LLM usage in standards when they are
> fully implemented. They are currently working on it here:
> https://w3c.github.io/AB-public/position-statements/llms-standards/ please
> feel free to contribute.
>
> As there are no current rules in place we want to gather community
> feedback and thoughts and attempt to implement a ruleset in the interim. We
> see a few options:
>
>    1. Ban all LLM/Agents from the mailing list and any spec work
>    2. Ban all LLM/Agents from the mailing list. Allow usage of both LLMs
>    and Agents in spec work if it is disclosed, with the understanding that
>    there is always a human in the loop reviewing and approving any work output.
>    3. Ban all LLM/Agents from the mailing list. Allow usage of LLMs in
>    spec work, disallow any autonomous agents, with the understanding that
>    there is always a human in the loop reviewing and approving any work output.
>    4. ??? —> any other positions or lines in the sand you wish to bring up
>
>
> Things to keep in mind:
>
>    1. The reason behind banning them from the mailing list is because it
>    just adds lots of noise. Generally, we believe if you aren’t willing to put
>    in the time to write something, why should the community put in the time to
>    read it.
>    2. Many people in the community struggle with communication in English
>    and LLMs help with accessibility
>    3. LLMs are usually very verbose, making it very hard to read/review
>    text written by an LLM and adds a lot of cognitive overhead.
>    4. LLMs can be subtly wrong when generating technical docs, and
>    reading overly verbose text makes it easy for nonsense to slip in.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Mahmoud Alkhraishi
>