My god this is badly written and confusing. At least an actual person signed it this time?
I'm not sure if this was LLM-written because I don't think an LLM would write a missive almost entirely in bullet points - but it has many of the hallmarks. Like, these sentences almost sound reasonable, but don't actually make sense or represent a coherent train of thought:
A recent access review had revealed that many systems were under the control of a single individual, which we determined presented a risk to the security and operational sustainability of those systems. We had intended to resolve this over time. However, the departure of key maintainers and contribution data showing that some maintainers had long periods of inactivity (Least Privileged Access), changed the timeline.
There is no coherent train of thought that they want to share publicly because their actual motives appear to be very unpopular and self-serving, so they offered up this nonsensical content instead.
Press releases/open letters like this one have existed long before LLMs for that reason.
These two sentences don't actually join together well logically:
> A recent access review had revealed that many systems were under the control of a single individual, which we determined presented a risk to the security and operational sustainability of those systems. We had intended to resolve this over time.
and:
> ... the departure of key maintainers and contribution data showing that some maintainers had long periods of inactivity (Least Privileged Access), changed the timeline.
As the 2nd doesn't really change anything about the 1st. If that "single individual" has been acting maliciously or similar then it might, but they don't present evidence of that being the case. So there's nothing about the 2nd statement which has anything to support changing any kind of timeline.
I'm not sure if this was LLM-written because I don't think an LLM would write a missive almost entirely in bullet points - but it has many of the hallmarks. Like, these sentences almost sound reasonable, but don't actually make sense or represent a coherent train of thought: