Greetings again. Martin Steigerwald - 27.10.26, 12:03:17 CET: > Now I looked at an assistant report more closely and I did not see a > hint on which model was used for the review[6]. But what has really > taken me aback was this: > > "Uploader's response to the LLM review > > The uploader was given 24 hours to respond to the serious issues the > review found, and did not." > > I am not kidding you. That is really written out on the public assistant > report webpage like that. > > The uploader is presented with a wall of text and then they were given > 24 hours to respond to it? > > Honestly I am without words about this. > > This is not okay. Simple as that.
Just one more note as it is easy to forget: I see a background for these changes. The DFSG team can use any help they can get. I appreciate package review work. Thank you! I stand by what I wrote above as feedback to the assistant repors, but there is a balance to be had and saying thank you is important as well: The DFSG team has to review a lot of packages with very few people. So I see where you are coming from. Well actually I do not really know cause I did not experience it myself but I probably can kind of imagine. Also package maintainers come from a similar, but also a bit different place. Most of us are doing any work for Debian in their limited spare time. So by all means I am not against using LLM for assistance for package review. But that is the point: For *assistance*, not as a pressure or an obligation. Anyway enough of that discussion for now – cause what I want to bring across in this mail in this very moment is this: * Thank you to the DFSG team for all your work. * * I appreciate it! * Be gentle with one another. > [6] DFSG, Licensing & New Packages Team: kate 4:26.08.2-2 > > https://dfsg-new-queue.debian.org/reviews/kate#assistant-report Best, -- Martin
