Quoting Ian Jackson (2026-11-07 14:56:21)
> 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.I fully agree with all the concerns and criticisms raised here. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
