What the parent comment was probably trying to say was something like "a completely reasonable, uncontroversial post that I'm glad to see them make", but chose milquetoast (a word that no normal human ever uses - and certainly not in casual conversation) due to an affectation of one kind or another.
Milquetoast perfectly describes it, I am happy to see less common words used around here (specially when the convey the intended meaning this precisely), and I find claiming "affectation" of the person who used it unnecessarily rude.
https://chatgpt.com/share/69b9be3b-a298-8009-bb21-c3afef1e5e...
Moreover, that word doesn't even fit within the parent comment's context.
> Incredibly milquetoast. I would not like to work with anyone who goes against these points. reply
They use milquetoast as a positive thing, and the opposite of how you use it.
You're unfortunately mistaken about everything here.
The post is timid and conciliatory, spending words on some weird bargaining on all the wonderful things you can do with LLMs in preparation for a contribution. Who cares? I’m not in the Django project, but I’d think (living in These Times and all) that the thrust ought to be more about how no-effort faux contributions are wasting people’s time. At some point you can say: you’ve been warned, others have warned about this for years as well, and we don’t take kindly to you pinging us in any form.
But if someone disagrees with this milquetoast proposal or stance? If they want to defy even this and go ahead and “spend tokens” by trying to shovel unlabeled, generated code into the project? Then that’s the kind of person that I don’t want to work with. I hope that clarifies milquetoast hermeneutics.