The wording in the declaration may be a bit romanticized. But the points are valid:
Is an 80 year old unsolved problem maybe unsolved because it was never prioritized? Some problems stay unsolved because few people consider them worth working on.
Who is going to validate the results? Or do we skip that, with the risk of flooding the literature and collective understanding with unverified proofs?
Also interesting to think about: could a single system be generally intelligent, or is a certain bias actually a power. Can we have billions of models, each with their own "experience"
Thought experiment: strip a forge down to what plain Git can't do: identity (who?), attestations (signed claims about a ref or actor), and policy (do these claims allow this ref update?).
With just those primitives, CI is a service that emits "ci/tested." Review emits "review/approved." A merge controller watches for sufficient attestations and requests a ref update. The forge kernel only evaluates whether claims satisfy policy.
Vouch shifts this even further left: attestations about people, not just code. "This person is trusted" is structurally the same kind of signed claim as "this commit passed CI." It gates participation itself, not just mergeability.
All this should ideally be part of a repo, not inside a closed platform like github. I like it and am curious to see where this stands in 5 years.
It's not a trade-off of clarity just to save developers some extra typing. It's actually improving the clarity by bringing the thing you care about to the foreground: the getting started page having a table of contents with specific items.
I wouldn't dare say XML is better in this regard, but a good reason to be conservative with the use of annotations is exactly that cmd+clicking them doesn't easily lead to where the behavior is implemented.
Is an 80 year old unsolved problem maybe unsolved because it was never prioritized? Some problems stay unsolved because few people consider them worth working on.
Who is going to validate the results? Or do we skip that, with the risk of flooding the literature and collective understanding with unverified proofs?