Hi Iain, On Sa 07 Nov 2026 13:56:21 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
I'm going to tilt at this windmill once.[1] The situation is so outrageously far from Debian's erstwhile norms that it's difficult to know where to start, but since we actually had a vote on this stuff, and what is being done now is in egregious violation of even the pro-LLM decision in that vote, let's start there: Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues writes ("I will no longer upload to NEW"):I have been shown by others that, without an announcement, NEW queue processing now seems to throw my upload at an LLM. From the review results: > This is an LLM based review using a Debian Inference based > workflow. It was not written by a member of the DFSG team and has > not been checked by one. It is not a decision on the package: it > may be wrong, and it may have missed things.I think these mails are (supposed to be) a "contribution to Debian". (If they are not, then they are off-topic or spam.) They are "contributed" by the DFSG Team members who set up this system. We had a vote on LLM usage. Let me quote from the winning option: The Debian Project nevertheless expects that all contributions submitted to Debian, regardless of how and with which tools they were produced, satisfy the same standards of quality, correctness, maintainability, and legal compliance. The use of a generative AI tool does not diminish the contributor's responsibility for the work they submit But these message *do not* satisfy *any* standards of quality and correctness, and *no-one* takes responsibility for them. The use of generative AI does not alter Debian's established expectations regarding large-scale or automated project actions. Contributors intending to perform actions with broad project impact, such as mass bug filing or patch submission, large-scale code modifications, or other automated changes or requests affecting many packages or contributors, should seek prior discussion and consensus through the appropriate project channels before proceeding. ... The new system is clearly a "large-scale or automated" project action. But the DFSG Team members who set it up *didn't* consult anyone, let alone get *consensus* as the GR demands (and our longstanding policy, and the Constitution, expect). Any such automated process should be overseen by a human who remains accountable for its behavior and output. There does *not* seem to be any human who is responsible for this system. Who, specifically, should we hold accountable? After all, the GR also says: This resolution therefore affirms that generative AI is neither exempt from nor subject to special rules beyond the standards already expected of Debian contributors. The responsibility for every contribution rests with the contributor who submits it, who remains accountable for its technical quality, legal acceptability, and suitability for inclusion in Debian. A human who generated huge volumes of output much of which was technically incorrect should be referred to CT or DAM. The GR says someone is responsible and accountable for the DFSG Team's LLM setup too. So who, hypothetically, should we refer to CT or DAM ? This is a conduct violation. It's not just a disagreement about the merits of LLMs. We had a vote, and what the DFSG Team are doing is a gross violation of the decision in that vote. Sruthi, you are the next line of accountability after the DFSG Team itself. You should at the very least very strongly criticise the DFSG Team's behaviour. Community Team and maybe DAM also need to be engaged. Seeing such high-handed rudeness go unchecked is extremely corrosive. Ian.
Thanks, Ian, for putting this into so clear words. I agree with all of the above said!
Mike -- mike gabriel aka sunweaver (Debian Developer) mobile: +49 (1520) 1976 148 landline: +49 (4351) 486 14 27 GnuPG Fingerprint: 9BFB AEE8 6C0A A5FF BF22 0782 9AF4 6B30 2577 1B31 mail: [email protected], http://sunweavers.net
