Hello, After I CC'd the DFSG team on one of my messages to this thread, I got a reply from Andrew McMillan off-list in which he explained his motivations in sending people the LLM summaries (it seems to have been just him working on this).
Andrew dropped debian-devel from the CC list, so the reply went only to me and to his teammates. In the message he said that he doesn't want to spend his time in Debian reading and writing mailing list messages. And clearly he puts this into action -- I don't think he has read anything in this thread, and it seems like his teammates haven't either. I'm not sure it is sustainable to hold such a central role in the project as the DFSG delegates do, and not engage with our primary means of communication. At the same time, I don't feel free to say that all delegates *must* be on debian-devel or something like that. Maybe we need to set some expectations here -- that all delegates need to make it clear the venue in which they'd like to receive feedback (in this case, it seems to be salsa issues). Ian Jackson [07/Nov 1:56pm GMT] wrote: > 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. Andrew's message to me off-list suggested that he would like to take responsibility for them, but I understand why, without any statement in public, it seems like no-one does. -- Sean Whitton
