I am largely neutral on whether a bot is actually necessary or not. I’d also imagine if one wanted to get caught up they could export the text and parse it in an AI product separately.
That said, I don’t agree with most of the privacy concern arguments here. I echo several others in saying that the idea that broadcasting to 200+ people is a bit silly to consider private in any context (with or without a bot).
However, I do think this resurfaces a trend amongst some recent integration requests (Together and Huddle01) regarding privacy at large. It seems we as a community have no concrete definition or consensus on matters of expected privacy or lack thereof.
I would call for a broader discussion on what privacy really means to us as a DAO. Personally, in the context of a delegate channel, (beyond being limited in privacy already) I’m not sure that walled garden chats are necessarily beneficial. And, who is this private from exactly? If effectively all 200 individuals who even tangentially engage with Arbitrum are already there, then I can’t really imagine who this comfort notion of “privacy” is actually providing us separation from? (Other protocols? Search engine logs from posting on the forum? – genuinely curious).
In the case of recorded meetings, I’ve said before, but Sinkas does a great job to announce before records start to allow participants to prepare accordingly. This is a matter of procedural privacy which does make sense to me.
But ultimately, we regularly discuss privacy without ever having had a conversation of the core ideas therein: what is our standard of privacy? who are we maintaining privacy from? when should things not be private? what are our processes to uphold the privacy standards we eventually land on? etc…