I think the real question is “should a community member be allowed to delegate their entire presence in a community to a bot that acts broadly on their behalf?”
Look at SAGE Edu, which is itself built on Tryton. Its 1.1 release credits people like @pierremichelaugustin and @Calixte_Loukov for French translation work.
That’s the normal shape of open-source contribution: a person picks one concrete thing they care about, a translation, a module, a bug and does that work themselves, under their own name, with their own judgment. Nobody translated SAGE Edu into French by spinning up an agent that also files issues, argues on the forum, reviews other people’s merge requests, and follows every thread it finds “interesting.” They did the one thing they signed up to do.
That’s the part that stands out to me about @eva_luadora, anyone here technically could build a bot like this today. The tools exist. But almost nobody has, and I think that’s not an accident, it’s because community participation isn’t just output, it’s presence and accountability.
So when @ced says:
I read that as the same instinct: a real person would not personally show up to argue in every thread the way a bot can. If the bot’s creator wouldn’t personally do this amount of engagement, then the bot isn’t really extending the person’s judgment, it’s producing behavior the person themselves might never have chosen to produce. That’s the gap between “AI-assisted” and “acting in my behalf.”
The underlying question that see in the community is: do we want participation here to stay scoped to what a person actually chose to work on, the SAGE Edu model, one topic, one person, real ownership or are we okay with members deploying agents whose implicit goal is “do everything, everywhere, all the time” in their name?