[mbreese]

That's a controversial stance. The first statement of not using codeberg hosted projects to train LLMs makes sense. But to outright ban LLM coded projects seems just silly. If the problem is that users have too many vibe coded projects, then limiting the number of projects seems like a more reasonable stance. To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them. I get that this is being spun as an effort to save resources, but this is a pretty blunt way to accomplish this. And a great way to alienate a lot of potential users.

It's their service and they can choose what they want to host. Maybe they don't see themselves as competing with Github and Gitlab and so they are happy serving the users they have. But to me this does not seem to be a great growth strategy.

[axus]

I think you're right, quotas have been around as long as multi-user systems.

Their argument was economic, an economic solution would be good:

"It seems like many ‘vibe coders’ don't realize that they don't actually have a community around them. They build projects as if they had, and spend resources accordingly. We see projects having a lot of code activity, heavy CI/CD testing, frequent and large release binaries. Sometimes, it feels like the amount of supported platforms exceeds the amount of actual users.

To us, it seems ridiculous to see projects with a single developer and virtually no users consuming as much or even more resources than some of the largest community projects on Codeberg, which operate frugal with CI/CD and storage resources. We do not believe it is reasonable for Codeberg to invest our precious donation money into hosting of large ghost projects"

Ultimately, democracy is a respectable form of government and the group is free to change their mind later.

[rtpg]

> To completely ban vibe coded projects just limits the number of users that will use them.

here lies the fundamental misunderstanding by many people in this thread.

Is the objective of Codeberg to host as many projects as possible on its own server? I do not believe so!

The question then becomes "what is Codeberg's objectives?"

It's not to become the world's largest code forge instance! It's to build a set of FOSS tools for FOSS software development. Look at [0], for example, which lists alternatives.

But perhaps most importantly, the FOSS tooling can be self hosted, right? There's still a notion of freedom there.

[0] https://docs.codeberg.org/getting-started/what-is-codeberg/#...

[joepie91_]

Given that they're a non-profit membership association with explicitly political goals where every new user represents a direct cost to the organization, and not a startup on a comfortable cushion of VC moneybags looking to pump the numbers for a quick acquisition, I very much doubt that a "growth strategy" is what they're going for here.

[throw49404040]

Silly is how it is handled and communicated. I want clear rules, not a rant that electricity is expensive!

I have bunch of projects and sites there for a year+, most of them are llm generated.

What is a grace period for existing projects to move? What are criteria for deciding what is "vibe coded"? If i get banned, is the repo just deleted, or made readonly...

Codeberg had outage for last 5 days, where some repos could not be commited into. I expected post mortem analysis, not this debate!

[inigyou]

> what is a grace period

Immediate. They can be deleted tomorrow.

> What are criteria

Common sense

> Is the repo just deleted

Probably. What would be the point of archiving (what they perceive as) garbage?